HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-centering-racial-equity-in-homeless-system-design-full-report-finalOakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care 2
CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY IN HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM DESIGN FINAL REPORT
FINAL REPORT | JANUARY 2021
CENTERING RACIAL
EQUITY IN HOMELESS
SYSTEM DESIGN
Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care
Table of Contents
CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY IN HOMELESS SYSTEM DESIGN .............................................................................. 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Racial Equity Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 4
Method ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Homeless Population Demographics ................................................................................................................................ 5
Housing and Economic Insecurity ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Homeless System Performance ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Focus Groups .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
System Strategies to Advance Equity ............................................................................................................... 26
Opportunities to Increase Racial Equity in the Homeless Response System Model ....................................................... 26
Inventory Recommendations Households with Only Adults ........................................................................................... 28
Inventory Recommendations Households with Minor Children ..................................................................................... 36
Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................................... 43
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: Racial Equity Impact Analysis Focus Groups ................................................................................. 46
Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Systems Modeling and Equity Focus Groups Background .............................................................................................. 47
Focus Group Recruitment ............................................................................................................................................... 48
Homelessness and Equity Focus Group Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 49
System Modeling and Equity Focus Groups Moderator Role and Tips ........................................................................... 50
Focus Group Discussion Guide For People with Lived Expertise of Homelessness .......................................................... 52
Racial Equity and Systems Modeling Focus Groups Notetaking Protocol ...................................................................... 55
Notetaking Template ..................................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix B: Method of Estimating Annual Homeless Population and Geographic Distribution ...................... 63
Appendix C. Program Models for Households with Only Adults ....................................................................... 66
Appendix D: Program Models for Households with Minor Children ................................................................. 77
Appendix E: CoC Sub-Geography Models, East County ..................................................................................... 86
Appendix F: CoC Sub-Geography Models, Mid-County ..................................................................................... 90
Appendix G: CoC Sub-Geography Models, North County .................................................................................. 94
Appendix H: CoC Sub-Geography Models, Oakland .......................................................................................... 98
Appendix I: CoC Sub-Geography Models, South County ................................................................................. 102
Sources ............................................................................................................................................................ 106
CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY IN HOMELESS SYSTEM DESIGN
Introduction
Between 2017 and 2019, homelessness sharply increased by 43% in Alameda County, California. Housing market
failures, homeless system challenges, and long-standing discrimination have produced a crisis in affordable housing and
homelessness, which has significantly impacted low-income people and communities of color. The surge in
homelessness and its disproportionate racial impacts, especially on African Americans and Native Americans, became
the impetus for a revamp of the homeless system modeling process to ensure that it is restructured to employ a racial
equity lens. With the goal of producing a homeless system that works better for all to end homelessness in Alameda
County, this system modeling process seeks to:
1) Identify and address factors leading to the over-representation of people of color in the population of people
experiencing homelessness.
2) Understand how facets of the homeless system benefit or burden people of color and pinpoint opportunities to
advance racial equity within the system.
3) Formulate key elements of a model homeless system, including optimal types and quantities of housing units and
service programs; and
4) Develop recommendations to more effectively and equitably allocate resources, prioritize investments, and advance
proactive, targeted strategies to end and prevent homelessness.
Process & Stakeholders
The racial equity and homeless response system modeling project was made possible in Alameda County by a Federal
technical assistance grant from the HUD Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs (SNAPS). Abt Associates, a HUD
technical assistance provider, facilitated the process and development of the model. EveryOne Home, the Continuum of
Care lead agency and collective impact backbone organization, convened the project under the leadership of three co-
chairs: Colleen Chawla, Director of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency; Libby Schaaf, Mayor of the City of
Oakland; and Doug Biggs, Chair of the Continuum of Care Board.
The homeless system racial equity modeling process was collaboratively implemented over eight months. The timeline
was shaped by the intention to use the system modeling and racial equity impact analysis recommendations to structure
the Measure W tax measure on the November 2020 Alameda County ballot. Between October 2019 to May 2020,
partners in responding to homelessness—elected officials, civil servants, local government agencies, service providers,
philanthropic organizations, stakeholders, and people with lived expertise of homelessness—worked together to design
a model system to end homelessness in Alameda County.
At the start of the project, a Leadership Committee was formed to consider the models’ implications and viability across
sectors and jurisdictions. This committee included a broad range of key stakeholders. Elected and civil servant
representatives from the county and nine of the 14 cities and unincorporated areas countywide participated in the
committee, including: Alameda County, and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward,
The homeless system model provides a blueprint for effectively
and equitably allocating resources and prioritizing investments
to end homelessness in Alameda County.
Livermore, Oakland, and San Leandro. The Leadership Committee was integral in advocating for formulating the
problem of homelessness and its potential solutions through a racial equity lens. This request to focus on racial equity
transformed the models. Infusing racial equity in the system model’s approach to resource allocation is both an
innovation in homeless system planning and a fundamental requirement for ending homelessness. The Leadership
Committee regularly convened (in October 2019; January, February, and May 2020) to provide feedback into the system
modeling process.
A Racial Equity Impact Analysis Team was established to develop and apply a racial equity lens in the system modeling
efforts. The team included county, city, and homeless community stakeholders who worked closely and collaboratively
over seven months (November 2019 to May 2020). Homeless system modeling involved two additional working
groups—one focused on households with only adults and another on households with minor children. Participants in the
Working Groups included community-based service providers as
well as city and county departments involved in homeless housing,
support services, and adjacent systems (education, re-entry,
transition-aged youth, seniors/older adults, victims of domestic
violence/human trafficking, and health care). Informed by Point in
Time Count results on the homeless population, Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS) data on service delivery,
provider knowledge about service populations, and existing and
potential service delivery models, the Working Groups developed
program models, assembled combinations of programs (pathways) needed to end and prevent homelessness, and
determined the proportion of the homeless population that would be best served through each pathway with a keen
eye on ensuring racial equity in outcomes.
Racial Equity Impact Analysis
Method
Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA) is a data-driven, structured problem-solving approach that explores the systemic
benefits and burdens on communities most impacted by racial disparities when designing and vetting potential solutions
to ending and preventing homelessness. This requires:
▪ Focusing intentionally on race, including raising awareness of historical factors that advantage some and
disadvantage others based on race.
▪ Using disparity data to center further investigation of root causes of disparities in the present time.
▪ Engaging people who have been impacted by disparities to challenge assumptions about their experience.
▪ Using quantitative and qualitative information to shape pro-equity programs and inventory recommendations to
reduce racial disparities in outcomes.
▪ Implementing system-wide pro-equity programs and approaches to reduce racial disparities in outcomes.
▪ Ongoing evaluation and accountability through the development of equity performance measures to track
progress.
The REIA framework used in this project was developed by the City of Oakland’s Office of Race and Equity. More
information can be found in Appendix A.
The 2019 EveryOne Counts! Report and Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) are the data sources used in
discussions of population demographics and homeless system performance, respectively.
Infusing racial equity in the system model’s
approach to resource allocation is both an
innovation in homeless system planning
and a fundamental requirement for ending
homelessness.
The REIA recognizes that system planning efforts often leave out the perspectives of people who are most impacted by
system decisions. For this reason, the REIA team aimed to elevate the voices of people with current or former
experiences of homelessness, specifically those over-represented racial groups in the homeless population. The focus
groups also sought out the voices of unsheltered people living in encampments, homeless immigrants, young adults,
seniors, and households with minor children.
Convening the focus groups was only possible with the help of community-based organizations in Hayward, Livermore,
and Oakland, including:
Homeless Population Demographics
Each year, it is estimated that 15,786 people in 13,135 households experience homelessness in Alameda County. The
2019 Point in Time Count (PIT) provides the basis for extrapolating these annual numbers. See Appendix B for detail on
the method used to derive estimates. The 2019 Point in Time Count shows that people experiencing homelessness in
Alameda County tend to be from Alameda County, with 78% residing in Alameda County before becoming homeless.
Men make up 61% of people experiencing homelessness, 35% identify as women, two percent identify as transgender,
and two percent as gender non-binary. Seventy-three percent of people experiencing homelessness were between 25
and 59 years, with 14% aged 60 years or older, and nine percent aged 18 to 24 years. Four percent of people
experiencing homelessness are younger than 18 years of age.
Households with only adults make up 91.4% of all households experiencing homelessness, an estimated 12,005
households each year. This proportion includes the estimated number of households with only adults who receive
services in the domestic violence system and never receive services from the mainstream homeless response system.
Ninety-five percent of households with only adults have only one member.
Households with minor children make up 7.5% of all households experiencing homelessness, an estimated 985
households each year. This proportion includes the estimated number of households with minor children who receive
services in the domestic violence system and those who never receive services from the mainstream homeless response
system. On average, households with minor children have three members.
Households with only minor children make up 1.1% of all households experiencing homelessness, an estimated 144
households each year. Runaway youth is one example of a household with only minor children. On average, households
with only minor children have one member.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of people and households experiencing homelessness across the 14 cities and
unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Homelessness is concentrated in Oakland, followed by mid-County (Alameda,
Hayward, San Leandro, Unincorporated) and North County (Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville) and then the Tri-City (Fremont,
Newark, Union City) and Tri-Valley (Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton) areas.
Figure 1: Annual Estimates and Geographic Distribution of People and Households Experiencing Homelessness in Alameda County
Subpopulations
Although many homeless people have experienced domestic violence, households fleeing domestic violence make up a
relatively small proportion of the overall number of households experiencing homelessness each year. The precise
number of households fleeing domestic violence is unknown. The working groups, which included domestic violence
victim service providers, decided to develop models inclusive of these households’ needs rather than create separate
models for victims fleeing domestic violence.
Veterans make up an estimated 6% of all households experiencing homelessness in a year; the majority are households
with only adults. The community decided to develop the models to be inclusive of these households’ needs, recognizing
that there are resources dedicated to serving homeless veterans.
Homeless Transition Aged Youth aged 18 to 24 (TAY) make up 6.7% of all people experiencing homelessness. TAY is an
important subpopulation with dedicated shelter and housing inventory set aside to meet young people’s unique needs.
The model for households with only adults includes specific pathways for TAY. TAY service providers participated in the
working groups, the Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA) included a focus group with members of the Youth Advisory
Board, and two formerly homeless TAY participated in the Leadership Committee. However, the community decided not
to create a specialized model for youth. Instead, the Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care (CoC)
intends to undertake a youth-focused modeling process that includes extensive youth representation.
Households experiencing chronic homelessness—defined as homeless for a year or longer with one or more disabling
conditions—make up 46% of all homeless households. HMIS data shows that roughly 49% of households with only
adults and 25% of households with minor children meet the definition of chronic homelessness. The model for
households with minor children includes a surge strategy to quickly address all households experiencing chronic
homelessness with 246 Permanent Supportive Housing units. The model for households with only adults does not
include a surge because there are thousands of chronically homeless households with only adults. For this reason, the
models for households with only adults are designed to effectively serve a significant proportion of households with
disabilities and long durations of homelessness.
Racial Disparities in the Homeless Population
While homelessness is widespread in Alameda County, it disproportionately impacts people of color. The 2019 Point in
Time count shows that people of color make up more than 2 out of 3 people (or 69%) experiencing homelessness in
Alameda County.1 The racial groups most disproportionately affected are people identifying as Black or African
American, collectively referred to as Black people in this report, and American Indian or Alaska Native, collectively
referred to as Native American people in this report. Black people account for 47% of the homeless population,
compared to 11% of the general population in Alameda County.2 Native Americans make up four percent of the
homeless population, compared with one percent of county residents. Black and Native Americans appear in the
homeless population at a rate four times higher than in the general county population.
Figure 2: Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Alameda County's General Population Compared with Alameda County's Homeless Population, 2019
Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders and Multiracial people are also disproportionately affected. Meanwhile, Whites (who
account for 31% of the homeless population, compared to 50% of the county population), Hispanic/Latinx (17% of
homeless vs. 22% of county residents), and Asians (two percent of homeless vs. 32% of county residents) are under-
represented in the homeless population.
Structural Racism
The over-representation of people of color among those experiencing homelessness reflects structural racism across
multiple systems.3 While Black people comprise 47% of the homeless population in Alameda County, they make up 22%
of people living in poverty. Native Americans account for four percent of people experiencing homelessness but one
percent of people in poverty. This suggests that, beyond income and poverty, racism and systemic inequities are key
factors producing disparate homeless outcomes.
Racial inequities in homelessness are deeply rooted in a “history of exclusion and dispossession, centered on race, and
driven by the logic of capitalism” – which “established massive inequities in who owned land, who had access to
financing, and who held political power.”4 Racial exclusion began with the colonization of Native Americans and
dispossession of their lands, resulting in land conquest by Spanish, Mexican, and early U.S. settlers and governments.
Land theft, genocide, forced assimilation, and relocation of Native Americans have led to historical trauma and deep
distrust of government institutions – which has lasting impacts on current experiences of homelessness and resistance
to government assistance.
Racial exclusion later took the form of discriminatory housing policies, such as racial redlining. Beginning in the 1930s,
the Federal Home Owners Loan Corporation developed color-coded maps that used racial criteria to appraise the
“residential security” of neighborhoods for real estate investment. The red sections of the map represented the lowest
level of “residential security” and, therefore, the highest risk. Banks and insurers adopted these maps to guide their
lending and underwriting decisions. Residential security maps produced racial discrimination by rationalizing social
11%
1%
32%
5%
1%
50%
22%
47%
4%2%
14%
2%
31%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
African
American/Black
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Multiracial Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
White Hispanic/Latinx
Racial Distribution of Alameda County's General Population
Compared With Alameda County's Homeless Population (2019)
Alameda County General Population Homeless Population
disinvestment from these neighborhoods. Many redlined areas still align with racial/ethnic minority communities that
struggle with disinvestment, high and persistent poverty, and racial segregation. Housing instability—barriers to
affordable, healthy housing—and homelessness co-occur in these places and communities.
Figure 3: Home Owners Loan Corporation Map, Oakland-Berkeley-Northern Alameda County, 1937
Figure 4: Persistence of Neighborhood Poverty by Census Tract, Alameda County, 1970-2010
The redlining example raised awareness of how racism is mediated through historical and contemporary structures that
include housing policies, banking systems, government institutions, and social practices. This awareness, in turn,
highlighted the need for a definition of structural racism. The REIA used the Aspen Institute’s definition of structural
racism:
STRUCTURAL RACISM is a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and
other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions
of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with ‘whiteness’ and disadvantages associated
with ‘color’ to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions
choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all
exist.—Aspen Institute
This definition points to how systems, including the homeless system of care and other social safety net systems,
reproduce racial discrimination. Many of the conclusions and recommendations in this report reflect the workings of
structural racism through mutually reinforcing systems. Creating equitable outcomes will require transformations in
legal, education, workforce development, and social welfare systems, among others. At this moment, partners in the
homeless continuum of care are bringing an intentional focus on the workings of structural racism in the homeless
system of care and changing the way the CoC does business to achieve equitable outcomes. It will not be sufficient to
focus exclusively on the homeless continuum of care. Rather, it provides a starting place for willing and engaged
partners to take up the challenge.
Housing and Economic Insecurity
Homelessness increased by 43% in Alameda County between 2017 and 2019. This increase took place in the context of
population growth and a tight housing market. Beginning in 2010, Alameda County saw a 10.7% increase in its
population5 and a 48% decrease in rental vacancies.6 The growing population and low vacancies have rapidly increased
the cost of housing.
Home Owners Loan Corporation Map,
Oakland-Berkeley-Northern Alameda County, 1937
Persistence of Neighborhood Poverty by Census Tract,
Alameda County,1970-2010
As housing costs skyrocket, low-income residents struggle to find affordable housing. The diminishing supply of
affordable housing in Alameda County is a result of decades-long retrenchment in affordable housing development.
From 2008-2018, Alameda County lost 80% of federal and state funding for affordable housing production and
preservation.7 In addition, NIMBYism (or “not in my backyard” resistance) of existing homeowners and restrictive local
zoning ordinances have thwarted the development of low-income, affordable housing, especially multi-family housing
units. Loopholes in inclusionary zoning ordinances have also permitted developers to pay fees to avoid requirements to
set aside a proportion of their housing developments as affordable for low- and very-low-income households. As a
result, it is very difficult to obtain and maintain affordable housing without subsidies.
The rise in housing and rental costs has far
outpaced increases in household income.
From 2000 to 2015, the median rent in
Alameda County increased 29%, while median
renter household income increased only three
percent (adjusting for inflation).8 Figure 5 lists
monthly fair market rents (FMR) set by HUD for
rental housing in Alameda County, compared
with the monthly income needed for housing to
be affordable at 30-50% of income.
The minimum wage in Alameda County ranges from $13.50/hour to $16.50/hour. At these rates, gross income for full-
time minimum wage employment falls between $2,335/month and $2,854/month. So, a family of three with the head of
household earning minimum wage is severely cost-burdened. Households that depend on public benefits or Social
Security have much lower incomes. In Alameda
County, 71% of extremely low income (ELI)
households pay more than half of their income
on housing costs compared to just two percent
of moderate-income households.13
Homeless households have extremely low
incomes and often rely on public benefits, Social
Security, or minimum wage employment. During
federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019, 25% of adults in
the homeless system had no income, and 49% had incomes between $1 and $1,000 when they enrolled in homeless
services.14 Almost three out of four adults entering the homeless system earn $1,000 or less per month. This means the
majority of people experiencing homelessness cannot afford fair market-rate housing.
Disaggregating monthly cash income by race and ethnicity shows some racial variations in income among adults entering
the homeless response system (program start). The highest proportions with low monthly incomes of $1,000 or less
were reported among Multiracial (60%), Black (57%), and Native Americans (57%). Native Americans reported the
greatest percentage of adults (13%), earning no income at the program start. Further exploration is warranted to
understand better how factors such as age, disability, and employment shape income differences by race.
Monthly Public Benefit & Social Security Income
Type of Benefit Maximum per month
Alameda County GA $336/month maximum9
CalWORKs/TANF $878-$983/month maximum
for family of three10
Social Security Disability $1,258/month national average11
Social Security Retirement $1,503/month national average12
Figure 6: Monthly Public Benefits and Social Security Income, 2020
Fair Market Rents & Income Needed to Afford Housing Costs
Unit Size Cost per Month
(2020 FMR)
Income Needed
for Housing Costs
at 30% of Income
Income Needed
for Housing Costs
at 50% of Income
Studio $1,488 $4,960 $2,976
One bedroom $1,808 $6,027 $3,616
Two bedroom $2,239 $7,463 $4,478
Three bedroom $3,042 $10,140 $6,084
Four bedroom $3,720 $12,400 $7,440
Figure 5: Fair Market Rents & Income Needed to Afford Housing Costs
Figure 7: Monthly Cash Income of Adults at Program Start by Race and Ethnicity, Federal Fiscal Year 2019
Homeless System Performance
The following sections will explore homeless response system performance as a whole and disaggregated by race and
ethnicity in each of the following areas: inflow, access to homeless system resources, permanent housing outflow,
returns to homelessness, length of time homeless, and coordinated entry.
High and Racially Disproportionate Inflow into the Homeless System
Homelessness surged in Alameda County between 2017 and 2019 due to
high inflow rates into the homeless system (people entering the homeless
response system for the first time) and low rates of outflow (people exiting
homelessness to permanent housing). During FFY 2019, a total of 3,622
people accessed homeless response system programs for the first time.15
This was a 61% increase in first-time homelessness over FFY 2018,
exceeding the targeted upper limit of 2,500 persons entering homelessness
that was set in the EveryOne Home 2018 Strategic Plan Update.
Disaggregating the first-time homeless data by race shows that the flow of people into homelessness is racially
disproportionate. In FFY 2019, Black and Native Americans entered the homeless system at five times their
representation in the general county population. Black people made up 58% of people entering the homeless system for
the first time, compared with 11% of the general population in Alameda County. Native Americans comprised 5%
compared with one percent of the county population.
13%
6%9%7%7%8%8%
44%
51%
43%
53%
34%
48%44%
10%13%14%12%13%12%11%8%8%8%7%
3%3%
7%
15%
11%10%12%
17%
9%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
African
American/Black
Asian Multiracial Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
White Hispanic/Latinx
Monthly Cash Income at Program Start
$0 $1-$1,000 $1,001-$1,500 $1,501-$2,000 $2,001+
Figure 8: Racial and Ethnic Distribution of People Entering the Homeless System for the First Time, Federal Fiscal Year 2019
Access and Outflow to Permanent Housing Does Not Vary by Race
While inflow into homelessness is racially disproportionate, administrative data from the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS) shows that access to homeless system programs is roughly proportionate to the racial
breakdown of the homeless Point in Time (PIT) count. People who identify as Black or African American access homeless
response system programs at higher rates than their proportion of the population. Rates of access among Native
Americans, Asian, and Native Hawaiian are equivalent to their population demographics. People who identify as
Multiracial or White access homeless programs at lower rates than their proportion in the PIT population measures.
Reasons for the variation among Black, Multiracial, and White participants in homeless programs may stem from the
concentration of homeless-serving programs in Oakland and Berkeley, where according to PIT data, a greater proportion
of the homeless population is Black; 70% in Oakland and 56% in Berkeley. The next step in data analysis should include
further disaggregating participation and outcomes by geographic region.
Figure 9: System-Wide Access and Permanent Housing Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity, Federal Fiscal Year 2019
11%
1%
32%
5%1%
50%
22%
58%
5%3%6%2%
24%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American/Black
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian Multiracial Native Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander
White Hispanic/Latinx
Racial and Ethnic Distribution of People Entering the Homeless System for
the First Time
Alameda County General Population Homeless Population
47%
4%2%
14%
2%
31%
17%
56%
4%2%8%2%
26%
16%
58%
4%2%9%2%
24%18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American Black
American Indian
Alaska Native
Asian Multiracial Native Hawaiian
Pacific Islander
White Hispanic Latinx
System-Wide Access and Permanent Housing Outcomes by Race and
Ethnicity
(FFY 2019)
Point In Time Count System Access System PH Exits
The rate of exits to permanent housing lags far behind the inflow into the homeless system. In FFY 2019, a total of 1,344
persons exited the homeless response system to permanent housing destinations.16 This was a two percent increase
over FFY 2018, but still far behind the goal in the EveryOne Home 2018 Strategic Plan Update of 2,000 persons exiting to
permanent housing. In 2019, nearly three people became homeless for every person who obtained permanent housing.
While exits to permanent housing are fewer than needed, the rates at which homeless people achieve positive housing
outcomes from the homeless response system does not vary by race.17 Black people make up 56% of the homeless
response system participants and 58% of the exits to permanent housing. Native Americans make up four percent of the
homeless response system and four percent of exits to permanent housing.
Reviewing access to and permanent housing outcomes from specific programs reveals a similar picture, with access and
permanent housing outcomes remaining nearly equivalent. Transitional Housing numbers show higher participation
rates for Black people and lower rates for White people. One reason for this may be because most Transitional Housing
programs are located in Oakland, where Black people make up a much higher proportion of the homeless population
(70%) as compared with the homeless response system overall (47%).
Disproportionate Returns to Homelessness Among Black Americans, Native Americans, & Native Hawaiians/Pacific
Islanders
In FFY 2019, the rate of returns to homelessness was 18%, with 312 persons returning to homelessness within two years
of leaving the homeless response system for permanent housing destinations.18 Disaggregating the data by race shows
that Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Black people have the highest return rates to homelessness, at 23% and 21%,
respectively.19 Native Americans and Multiracial people are in the middle, each with a rate of return at 17%, followed by
Whites at 14%, Hispanic/Latinx at 13%, and Asians at seven percent. It should be noted that some groups have a small
sample size, including Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (n = 40) and Asians (n = 72).
Figure 10: Access to and Permanent Housing Outcomes from Individual Program Types by Race and Ethnicity, Federal Fiscal Year 2019
Access to & Permanent Housing Outcomes from Individual Program Types
by Race/Ethnicity: Alameda County, FFY 2019
The prior living situation of people returning to homelessness from permanent housing shows that a significant number
of people who return to homelessness were last living in unsubsidized rental housing. This is the most frequent prior
living situation for returns overall and the top prior living situation for Black, Asian, Multiracial, and White people. For
Hispanic/Latinx people, unsubsidized rental housing is tied with staying or living with family as the most frequent prior
living situation. For Native Americans, the most frequent prior situation is staying or living with family. Native
Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders who returned to homelessness most frequently had lived in rental housing situations with a
Rapid Re-Housing subsidy or another ongoing housing subsidy. The prior living situations of people who return to
homelessness reflect the barriers to housing stability that formerly homeless people confront in the rental housing
market. The high rate of returns from family points to the strength and strain of family networks that may be similarly
vulnerable. Together, this analysis informs the homeless response system model’s emphasis on ongoing forms of
support linked to household income in the form of shallow and deep subsidies. These types of supports will help
economically vulnerable homeless households retain permanent housing. The analysis also points to the need for
changes beyond the boundaries of the homeless response system, including housing and economic policy changes that
will make housing sustainable for the lowest income households.
Coordinated Entry
Coordinated entry is the front door and central organizing feature of the homeless response system. The purpose of
coordinated entry is to organize “the Continuum of Care’s (CoC) system of care so that it fits together intentionally and
efficiently, resulting in more efficient use of resources and improve fairness and ease of access to resources, including
mainstream resources while prioritizing people who are most in need of assistance.”20 In the Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda
County Continuum of Care, coordinated entry occurs through the standardized processes of access, triage, housing
problem solving, assessment, prioritization, and matching to resources. A custom prioritization tool identifies those
“most in need” based on a combination of factors, including household size and composition, length of time homeless,
health, income, housing barriers that include rental and homeownership history, law enforcement, and risk. A weighted
scoring framework assigns point values to these barriers and vulnerability factors, with the highest scores indicating the
most vulnerable households. These households are prioritized for the limited resources available in the homeless
response system.
23%
21%
17%
17%
14%
7%
13%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n=40)
African American/Black (n=1,251)
American Indian or Alaska Native (n=63)
Multiracial (n=225)
White (n=445)
Asian (n=72)
Hispanic/Latinx (n=369)
Rate of Return to Homelessness by Race and Ethnicity (FFY 2019)
Figure 11: Rate of Return to Homelessness by Race/Ethnicity, Federal Fiscal Year 2019
Prioritization determines access to housing resources. As such, it is both appropriate and necessary that prioritization
works fairly across racial and ethnic groups. There have been local and national concerns over the October 2019 study
by C4 Innovations that found racial disparities in the outcomes produced by a prioritization tool called the VI SPDAT,
which many communities use in the U.S.21 Prioritization data in Alameda County does not show racial disparities. At
present, the custom prioritization tool used in the Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care is producing
outcomes proportionate to the population by race.
As an example, the proportion in the top five percent of the countywide By Name List (BNL) of prioritized households
and the proportion on the BNL generally are within four percentage points. This is important because the top five
percent of the BNL is most likely to get matched to housing resources. At the same time, the overall BNL includes
anyone who is literally homeless. Native Americans, as well as Multiracial people, are represented at slightly higher rates
(two to four percent) in the top five percent of the BNL as compared with BNL generally. People identifying as African
American or Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, or Hispanic/Latinx appear in the top five percent of
the BNL at slightly lower rates than on the list generally (one to two percent). The representation of each group in the
2019 PIT Count and in HMIS gives two additional population measures as a comparison. The 2019 annual evaluation of
coordinated entry explores the prioritization tool in greater detail and is available on the System Coordination
Committee page of the EveryOne Home website (www.everyonehome.org).
It is essential that the homeless response system fairly and transparently allocate resources. This is even more true
because the number of homeless households far exceeds the available inventory. During 2019, the homeless response
system saw roughly 350 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) vacancies. Of those, 221 were existing units turned over,
and slightly more than 125 units were added to the system. In Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) during 2019, of the 1,595
households served, 787 moved into housing. During that same period, there were as many as 9,000 homeless
households in need of permanent housing. Together, the current level of permanent housing resources (PSH+RRH) in
the homeless response system is enough to reach between 10-13% of the households on the prioritized BNL.
The purpose of coordinated entry is to quickly fill housing vacancies with an eligible and highly vulnerable household;
too few vacancies is a significant barrier to an effective coordinated entry system. In the current homeless response
system, most households will not be matched to housing resources or support services because there are not enough
beds and units available. In 2020, EveryOne Home’s System Coordination Committee (the Coordinated Entry Policy
Entity) worked with the Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination (the Coordinated Entry Management
Entity) to right-size the prioritization process to the inventory of resources. At the same time, the Racial Equity Impact
Analysis and system modeling provide clear direction on the types of interventions and scale of resources required to
end homelessness in Alameda County.
Figure 12: By Name List (BLN) of prioritized households
Focus Groups
Methodology
Nine 90-minute focus groups were conducted in English and one in Spanish, with facilitators who shared the
participants’ racial/ethnic backgrounds. Focus groups followed a semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix A) with
questions about the root causes of homelessness, barriers to obtaining housing, and homelessness prevention, crisis and
interim services, housing barriers, types of housing interventions, and returns to homelessness. Several notetakers
attended each focus group and used a standardized template to record the conversation, then collated their notes
afterward to increase accuracy and collect verbatim quotes. Notetakers also provided observations and insights into key
messages, tone, and dynamics within each focus group.
A total of 57 people shared their lived experiences to inform homeless system modeling. Focus group sites were
selected to ensure representative participation across race, age, household composition, geographic regions, and
sheltered, unsheltered, and formerly homeless perspectives. Participants were recruited by staff at these sites. See
Appendix A for the numbers and demographics of participants by race/ethnicity, gender, age, and homelessness status.
Participants were invited to speak openly about their lives, experience of homelessness, and interactions with homeless
programs, services, and systems. Participants received a meal and were compensated for their time.
A sub-group of the REIA Team conducted a qualitative analysis by reading through detailed notes and using qualitative
analysis software (Dedoose) to code participant quotes into themes. Reliability was increased through a standardized
“codebook” that defined themes that researchers discussed and refined throughout the analysis. Key themes that
emerged were integrated into findings and recommendations.
It is important to note some methodological limitations of the focus groups.22 Recruitment through existing relationships
can lead to selection and convenience biases. To capture the breadth and diversity of experiences within and across
racial and ethnic groups, more focus groups would have been needed. Some participants may have felt uncomfortable
voicing negative perspectives about homeless programs, services, and systems, particularly if groups were located at
sites where participants receive services. Qualitative analysis was also subject to researcher bias.
To reduce these biases, staff from the host organizations were absent from all or most of the focus groups. Participants
were assured of confidentiality (their names would not be used in reporting). Some staff reported that multiple contacts
while recruiting helped increase trust with participants. Analytic biases were mitigated by involving a diverse group of
researchers who worked together to code and extrapolate findings.
Analysis of qualitative data from nine focus groups deepened understanding of how structural racism plays out across
multiple systems and intersects with lived experiences of homelessness. The following themes emerged from the focus
groups, including stories of resourcefulness and resilience to prevent and overcome homelessness and cope with
structural barriers.
Mass Incarceration
Focus group participants described how incarceration impacted their ability to find and keep housing. While
incarceration is a barrier to housing and employment for anyone who has been to prison, the well-documented mass
incarceration of Black, Latinx, and other people of color means that incarceration is a barrier to housing
disproportionately impacting people of color.23
I’d been in jail for 20 years. The only way I got in [to housing] was the subsidy I got through [this program]. They
had to pay double in security deposit. It made it really hard because they hold mistakes against you. I’m kind of
stuck where I’m at because I know it will be a problem if I need to go anywhere else even though I have
completely changed.
– Participant 24, Black man, aged 50-64
I spent 20 years in prison. Incarceration led me to become unhoused.
– Participant 53, Asian man, aged 40-49
I can’t find a place [to live]. I’m an ex-felon. I’ve been out 30 years, but I’m still a felon.
– Participant 20, White man, aged 65+
Health
Research on the social determinants of health shows that the places where people live, work, and go to school impact
their health. Awareness of the social determinants of health is particularly important in light of the history of redlining in
the United States, which segregated Black, Native American, and other people of color and divested those
neighborhoods of economic, educational, and social opportunity. Many participants in the racial equity focus groups
described growing up in communities marked by this divestment in Oakland and broadly in Alameda County. Places with
fewer opportunities are also places with poor health outcomes. Not surprisingly, poor health was a root cause of
homelessness for many people in the racial equity focus groups.
I first became homeless when I was 59. I had a bad heart attack and couldn’t work. I had savings, then the money
ran out and I had no place to go.
—Participant 29, Black man, aged 50-64
I loved my job; I was there about 10 years... I needed back surgery, so I thought I’d have surgery and be fine, go
back to work. That wasn’t the case. I was out for a year. And I tried to go back to work even though I wasn’t
feeling good. I had my own place and worked 6 days a week. Anyway, long story, after that I went into
depression, the worker’s comp thing because in my mind I knew I couldn’t keep my own place.
—Participant 45, White woman, aged 50-64
I learned of an illness I had from childhood that affected me. It was not my fault and it started when I was 13. I
got a live-in caregiver job and when she died I had nowhere to go. I was couch surfing and there was housing
with rats and roaches.
—Participant 25, Black woman, aged 65+
I had a stroke and they told me I wouldn’t be able to talk or walk anymore… Since I had the stroke, I have not
been able to return to work.
—Participant 39, Latino man, aged 50-64
Likewise, poor health is a consequence of homelessness that impacts communities of color over-represented in the
homeless population. Across the focus groups, participants described physical health challenges, including heart
conditions, back problems, joint problems, and emotional and behavioral health challenges like depression, bipolar
disorder, stress, anxiety, trauma, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders. As both a
cause or consequence of homelessness, this analysis identified poor health as a structural outcome of inequality that
disproportionately impacts Black Americans, Native Americans, and other communities of color.
Education
Several participants recounted how education outcomes and housing instability are interconnected. Participants talked
about the ways housing instability made it difficult to take advantage of educational opportunities, which created
another barrier to employment and housing. Once again, the history of redlining is instructive in understanding the
structural divestment of educational opportunities from communities of color and the reverberation of that divestment
in the current homelessness crisis.
I was trying to go to school but also needed to find housing, so I went to transitional housing. I dropped out of
school and [am] trying to work full time and find housing.
–Participant 1, Black man, aged 18-24
I went to Oakland Tech. Before that I was going to really good schools but got kicked out because of altercations
and was being rebellious because my life was terrible. I’m the black sheep of the family so I didn’t get too much
support with that. In Oakland Tech I was smart as hell and was able to pass just going for two days and coming
back a week later. But I wasn’t able to graduate because of so many incompletes.
–Participant 2, Multiracial man, aged 25-39
I’m battling really tough depression. It’s hard to concentrate on school with everything else that’s going on.
—Participant 46, Latino man, aged 40-49
I didn’t go to school, I didn’t learn work, I am not able to pay rent because I don’t work.
—Participant 44, Latino man, aged 50-64
These narratives show how housing instability and economic necessity present barriers to finishing school, which
becomes a barrier to income and housing.
Immigration
Homeless Hispanic/Latinx participants talked about multiple stressors they experience, including fear of deportation,
barriers to accessing help, distance from family, grief for lost family members, and discrimination.
I lost three members of my family—my mom, my grandma, and my brother. Then I lost my wife. Life is hard and
it’s hard being an immigrant. Being alone and far away from family.
—Participant 40, Latino man, aged 40-49
Latinos . . .[they] look at us like trash. They don’t allow our backpacks. There are stereotypes specifically for
Latinos.
—Participant 43, Latina man, aged 50-64
The Latin community…cannot truly stand up for themselves. They pick on the Latin community because they
[Latinx] cannot go to the law enforcement. It’s hard for everyone but especially females. Latin community stays
within themselves.
—Participant 31, Latino man, aged 50-64
Many people are afraid of being deported for even trying to get services.
—Participant 44, Latino man, aged 50-64
In these narratives, participants describe how immigration status, distance from family, and the stigmatized stereotypes
of being Latinx in U.S. American society present additional impediments to housing stability and returning to housing.
Inability to Increase Income
Structural racism creates barriers to employment and increasing income. Frequently barriers and adverse impacts
carried over from one system to another, such that poor health and disabilities, mass incarceration, barriers to
education, and immigration status combined to limit the focus group participants’ ability to work, earn sufficient wages,
and secure higher-paying jobs. Examples include:
I’m on SSI. Rent is $1,500 a month, and I only get $900.
—Participant 24, Black man, aged 50-64
Even if you have an income [it’s hard to pay rent]. Like I have SSI plus I’m working as a crossing guard. Both of
those incomes together won’t do it.
—Participant 47, Multiracial woman, aged 50-64
Our income is not high enough. I’m working and my son is working too, but our income has got to be higher.
—Participant 12, Native American woman, aged 50-64
How do you get your income that high, though? What are you supposed to do to make it go higher?
—Participant 18, Latino man, aged 50-64
Within the context of structural racism, homeless participants described their ongoing struggles to earn enough to pay
for housing, transportation, and other basic living costs. Many described trade-offs; needing to choose between paying
for housing, food, or transportation:
Like everything is so expensive, not just rent. Just necessities and other things. It’s hard to save and have money
to pay your rent, utilities, and food.
—Participant 7, Native American woman, aged 18-24
If I am going to pay rent, I can’t eat or buy gas. It’s hard. On $2,000 you can’t make it. You need $3,500 because
rent is $1,800 or more. You need to work three jobs and sell peanuts on your lunch break.
—Participant 14, Black man, aged 50-64
Often poverty is represented as a key feature and cause of homelessness. Importantly, the focus group showed that low
incomes for many homeless households are inextricable from structural racism.
Displacement
A 2018 report from California Housing Partnership and UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project show how the rapid
increase in housing costs between 2010 and 2015 forced lower-income households of color out of cities and into more
affordable suburban areas with fewer support services.24 The report concluded that the result is an intensification of
racial segregation and disparities across the Bay Area. Focus group participants echoed these findings, describing the
pressure to leave the city or county to find affordable housing, including housing opportunities offered by the current
homeless response system. For many, displacement means leaving places where they grew up, had family, community,
and employment:
What we’re finding is that we’re going to have to leave the city and county to find an affordable place to
stay. And then I’ll have to find a new job. And leave our home here.
—Participant 8, Native American woman, aged 25-39
I am still looking [for housing] and two years into it…. Antioch and other places are miles away. I built a life here
for myself and want to stay here. I want to be close to my son and grandsons. Nothing has come up in Oakland.
—Participant 30, Black woman, aged 65+
I was living in Oakland with my mom, but the rent got too high, so we moved to Stockton for two years. Lot of
people that are from the Bay Area that are all moving out there. But it’s nicer out here; I was born and raised in
Oakland.
—Participant 18, Latino man, aged 50-64
They lead us on and say we got the place. Wait for us to call back and they say you don’t got the place. You see
on Craigslist again for a higher price. Just seem like they want us to get out of here. Gentrification is happening.
They don’t want us here. They want us out.
—Participant 9, Native American man, aged 18-24
Through these voices and supporting research, it becomes clear that racialized displacement is produced through the
ostensibly race-neutral housing affordability pressures at work in Alameda County. For this reason, a significant finding
from the REIA focus groups is recognizing the discourse of affordability as structural racism.
Distressed Networks and Supports
For families already struggling against the impacts of structural racism, focus group participants described how familial
instability or the death of a family member resulted in homelessness. Several informants in the racial equity focus
groups experienced familial instability as children. Their perspective shows how the impacts of structural racism are
transmitted and compounded in the next generation.
I came from a broken home. When I was 8 my mom couldn’t take care of four kids by herself. We bounced
around shelters for years. For me, [homelessness is] based on lack of family supports.
—Participant 2, Black Male, aged 25-39
For me it’s like I was in foster care so I could do my AB12 for extended foster care, but I kinda messed that up
when I was 19. I had my apartment and it got hit by SWAT and I was in jail a little bit. My background and my
income [are barriers]. I really don’t know too many resources for people in my situation. I usually turn to
someone I know before I turn to something else.
—Participant 11, Multiracial woman, aged 18-24
Particularly in the Native American and Black focus groups, participants talked about their families’ cultural significance
in maintaining housing and well-being. Several Black participants described the loss of both housing and cultural
supports after the death of a parent or grandparent:
I first realized I was homeless when my mom and dad died when I was 40. One passed in July and one in August. I
was living with my mother and father. My sister sold the house and I see for sale sign on house. I couldn’t go
back there, so I started sleeping my car.
—Participant 26, Black Male, aged 65+
We are lost as African Americans – and people living in this country. We don’t value ourselves – the struggle and
hard work. When my grandma died, all the values she tried to instill in our family went out the window. She was
our Big Mama. That comes from a spiritual place – the things that bring peace and happiness – and all those
things you want for your life.
—Participant 35, Black woman, aged 25-39
My parents died and the rest of the siblings sold the house. I had always had a place with my mother. I was not
responsible enough to hold a job. I did the homeless thing real well. I learned how to be an addict and homeless.
—Participant 23, Black man, aged 65+
And even as participants described positive family relationships, few had family supports sufficient to end their
homelessness. These stories echo the findings of the Paul et al. study of homelessness in Oakland and reinforce research
findings on the racial wage and wealth gap.25 Particularly in the Native American, Black, and Hispanic/Latinx focus
groups, participants shared the cultural significance of family in maintaining housing and well-being. Several Black
participants described the loss of both housing and cultural supports after a strong elder’s death. The result that the
impacts of structural racism are transmitted and compounded in the next generation. A significant finding of the equity
focus groups is that over time structural racism thins the familial resources and supports that may otherwise prevent
homelessness. The resulting losses are both material and cultural.
Barriers in the Housing Market
Despite the end of legal segregation and explicit housing discrimination, the deeply rooted association between race and
risk persists and influences access to housing, on what terms, and where.13 While race-neutral at face value, credit
checks, income requirements, and background checks form barriers to the housing market that disproportionately affect
people of color and effectively produce housing discrimination.
I went to programs that paid first and last month rent. My credit score is bad so they don’t want to help you out.
Then they don’t want to let people come and inspect the place. It’s bad if you don’t have an average credit score
even if you have got money and job. Also, the application fees.
—Participant 14, Black man, aged 50-64
Like the applications they want bank statements, showing you have money saved. Some places they don’t want
you to leave stuff blank. I don’t have a bank account so I can’t put stuff there. Transportation and trying to get
places. Some places want you to drop it off at the property. I had to go to Berkeley once.
—Participant 10, Native American woman, aged 25-39
Money. And, we don’t have an address, we can’t keep our place of living to get notified, to have our ID sent to us.
It’s very hard even to have your mail.
—Participant 17, Black woman, aged 50-64
The applications you fill out for apartments are really intrusive. I don’t understand some questions. They want to
go so deep into your life. A lot of stuff you forget, and they want to go back 10 years ago. I don’t remember
where I lived 10 years ago. If you leave out anything, anything minor, they turn the application down. I fill them
out to the best of my knowledge, but it’s not enough.
—Participant 29, Black man, Aged 50-64
I filled out an application for housing in West Oakland. I guess it was one of those income/tax-based apartments.
I gave them everything, check stubs, proof of income. And they told me that I still don’t make enough. Then my
five-year old son has autism – my son just got approved for SSI. When you get it, bring it in. Took too long to get
started, passed me up.
—Participant 33, Black woman, aged 25-39
High rents period. Having to have five times the income. It’s hard for those with bad credit, or generations of bad
credit. There is nothing to build upon.
—Participant 8, Native American woman, aged 25-39
As the cost of housing has steadily increased, many landlords are seeking high incomes, strong credit, and a clean
criminal background. Stories emerged within and across homeless participants about how multiple barriers – such as
application fees, low incomes, poor credit, obtaining identification, and having a bank account– can converge and make
it extremely difficult to find housing. These barriers disproportionately impact homeless households of color.
Lack of Deeply Affordable Housing
The racial equity focus groups identified an important gap in the homeless system services: extremely low-income
households without ongoing support service needs. At present, the only deeply affordable permanent housing
opportunity in the homeless system is Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), which requires an extended length of time
being homeless and a disability. Other deeply affordable housing may be reserved for seniors aged 62 and older.
Participants in the REIA focus groups described the absence of resources appropriate to their circumstances as
profoundly unresponsive.
What’s frustrating to me is I don’t have a drug problem. I’m just a mom with kids who has been in abusive
relationships. I remember the lady interviewing me saying I’ll score higher if I have a drug problem–I'd get right
in tonight.
—Participant 8, Native American woman, aged 25-39
When you’re homeless, the first thing they tell you is to call 211... We called 211. They kept saying to keep
calling. They wanted to do this whole screening process. Single people with kids need to be a priority. 211 was no
help whatsoever. The only way I got into [this program] was because of this one [211] operator–who said call
this other number, off the record, and they will be able to help you.
—Participant 33, Black woman, aged 25-39
All I want is a home that I can bring my grandkids to ((crying)). I’m tired of having doors closed in my face. I’ve
been filling out applications every day. And then they say you can’t get in because you’re not 62. Or they’re
telling us it’s a lottery. I’m tired. I’m tired. I’m done fighting. I’ve been fighting to get off drugs, I’m not fighting
anymore.
—Participant 47, Multiracial woman, aged 50-64
For these participants, not having a disability or support service needs became a barrier to accessing housing. Even focus
group participants who welcomed support services made clear the value of their privacy and autonomy. Many
participants viewed the service model offered in permanent supportive housing to be too intrusive:
I love having my own place, don't like too much intrusion unless I'm asking for it.
—Participant 26, Black man, aged 65+
A lot of people will feel good, getting some assistance and not [having support service providers] on our back…
People would feel good being independent.
—Participant 32, Latino man, aged 25-39
Further, participants framed autonomy as part of their cultural identity and an expression of resistance to past and
contemporary racial injustice:
We have a distaste for social services and government. The government rounded up my grandparents like cattle.
We panic because these are terrible places. It’s been happening for generations. Government scares us, because
of what they’ve done to us.
—Participant 13, Native American woman, aged 40-49
There are Latinos who are very proud and don’t seek out help because of pride. There is fear to grab services
because the president [“Obama”] is deporting. We know that when people get deported, they are killed there,
where they go back to. I have lost friends this way.
—Participant 43, Latino man, aged 50-64
Evaluating Current Homeless Housing Interventions and Services
Focus group participants shared their experiences accessing housing and services from the homeless system and
provided insight on how the system could be more responsive to their needs.
Crisis Response (shelter, safe parking, showers, bathrooms, meal programs, and street outreach)
Overall, participants were appreciative of the crisis response services available, especially:
Shelters were the main thing that supported me when I was younger.
—Participant 2, Multiracial man, aged 25-39
The [outreach] people that bring food, that really helps. They come out with resources, ponchos when it’s raining.
That really helps. Showers. Laundry.
—Participant 17, Black woman, aged 50-64
The people that bring food help. And outreach people do a good job. Showers and laundry are very helpful.
—Participant 21, White woman, aged 25-39
For my little family we live in an RV. We utilize the people that do the showers on Miller and E 15th. There are
some places that serve hot dinner, you just gotta stand in line. Or the food bank. Or just random people come by
and bring toiletries.
—Participant 8, Native American woman, aged 25-39
(What would be helpful?) Storage.
—Participant 47, Woman with Unknown Race/Ethnicity, aged 50-64; Participant 50, White Woman,
aged 50-64; and Participant 52, Black man, aged 40-49
Shelter 3 days a week for the homeless, that’s really, I’m grateful for it. Trinity has been closed for years. But to
have the opportunity to do laundry and showers 3 days a week; it’s really a benefit in my opinion.
—Participant 52, Black man, aged 40-49
At the same time, participants remarked how crisis responses, specifically shelter and transitional housing, have
programmatic barriers, including limited hours, restricting access to certain populations, and prohibiting visitors:
Sometimes they try to control your visitors and they put my daughter out. I’m in transitional housing right now
and can have people come a couple times a year.
—Participant 26, Black man, aged 65+
That’s one thing I don’t like about here is they don’t let you have visitors.
—Participant 27, Black woman, aged 65+
Maybe Saint Vincent de Paul in downtown Oakland. They have clothes there and showers. SVDP also gave access
to computers and everything. I wish there was a lot of places like that, especially if it was 24 hours.
—Participant 4, Black woman, aged 18-24
A lot of them won’t really support the type of families we come from. A lot of us have adult kids and parents. We
are non-traditional families. This is the way our people were from the beginning. Our system doesn’t fit with the
government funds. We can’t go anywhere because he is a man not in this family anymore but he is my son and
he is family. And we are not going to split up, we are going to stick together.
—Participant 8, Native American woman, aged 25-39
In addition to these barriers, participants described negative experiences in shelters, including staff favoritism, conflicts
with staff and other occupants, and concerns about health and safety in shelters:
I would go back to my car before I put my kids inside a shelter. I didn’t want to have a newborn in a shelter – it
was filthy. There were so many beds in there. Why are they not filling these beds? What is going on? Do you
choose to pick who you put in there? It was just crazy. There are people out here, and you told me you did not
have any beds... Now I’m seeing all the empty beds.
—Participant 33, Black woman, aged 25-39
There are rotten apples (staff) that are at some of the shelters.
—Participant 32, Latino man, aged 25-39
People get ripped off. People steal from you. The other night, somebody took my motorcycle helmet.
—Participant 31, Latino man, aged 50-64
You’ve got to stay in there and do everything perfect. You have to have a sponsor. You’ve got to get up real early.
The only thing good about a shelter is the roof and the bed.
—Participant 17, Black woman, aged 50-64
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH)
Participants in the focus groups thought Rapid Re-Housing is particularly well-suited for people who just need “some
help and some time,” or those who are in a position to “get back on their feet.” RRH relieves people from worrying
about rent for several months (it can “take off the stress”) and offers time to regroup, become more financially stable,
and/or look for permanent housing. This aspect of RRH resonated with many focus group participants:
Something like this would do me good. I’m a commercial truck driver. It would put me in a position that would
help me. I would not have to worry about rent for six months. I could get my back account, my necessities… I
would be able to regroup.
—Participant 31, Latino man, aged 50-64
I think it works for this reason: It will help you get into a place you couldn’t get on your income alone [while
homeless]. Even if all you have leftover is $500 dollars a month… Then you can establish you can pay the rent.
—Participant 13, Native American woman, aged 40-49
These kinds of programs work for people who are very motivated and have the wherewithal to get back on their
feet.
—Participant 35, Multiracial woman, aged 25-39
Other participants reflected that while RRH may work for some, it would not work for them. For those with limited ways
of increasing their income, short-term support like RRH was not appealing:
You gotta pack up again because it goes so quick. If I don’t have the benefits to move on and then I’m in the
same spot, (homeless). My anxiety would kick in too. It would be hard.
—Participant 26, Black man, aged 65+
When I was younger and could get an income, but now I can’t... 20 years ago maybe, when I had different
energy. But now, I wouldn’t take that chance. If something didn’t pull through to make my housing affordable,
I’d have to pack up and start again. Pack up and go to a shelter.
—Participant 30, Black woman, aged 65+
So you’re in a place, and your job hasn’t elevated – then you’re homeless again. After that, what are you going to
do?
—Participant 14, Black man, aged 50-64
Back then it would been bad for me because I just needed somewhere to live. That’s what most people would do.
I would need something longer. Because there’s a lot of people where it’s a cycle that’s going to happen again.
—Participant 4, Black woman, aged 18-24
Rather than rejecting Rapid Re-Housing as an intervention, the focus group participants drew attention to the challenges
of using RRH effectively in a high-cost housing market. The participants point to a need to refine and target the use of
RRH to households who show potential for increasing their income and to provide a backstop for households in RRH
who realize they need ongoing financial or services support.
Permanent Supportive Housing
Focus group participants were enthusiastic about the long-term, deeply subsidized rent component of Permanent
Supportive Housing. The ongoing support service model received mixed reviews. Some welcomed support services—
particularly light touch services that helped them feel secure—while others described support services as intrusive.
It depends on what the support is. Some people need substance abuse support. Some people need health care
support. Some just need help going over finances and having their ducks lined up so they are making bills.
—Participant 13, Native American woman, aged 40-49
It will put me in a basic stable environment, compared to something temporary. It would help me work on my
long-term issues. Go back to the root.
—Participant 32, Latino man, aged 25-39
I need security and social services. Elders need someone in the building to make sure everything is okay. They got
a desk clerk and someone that walks the grounds at night to make sure they’re not abused.
—Participant 27, Black woman, aged 65+
I kinda need it (PSH) right now. I have my own apartment right now but after all the stuff I’ve been through. All
the trauma and times- I’ve been hit by a car a couple of times. I’m in a good place right now but have two
different forms of bipolar disorder. I think about how there are a lot of people housed without that type of
support. You have to support the mind and the physical.
—Participant 2, Multiracial man, aged 25-39
Dedicated Affordable Housing
Participants discussed how dedicated affordable housing was preferred to the other housing interventions because it
allowed them to pay rent and live independently from what was interpreted as required services:
I get $1000 a month and I’m willing to put half of it down for housing. I’d jump all over this–let's do this.
—Participant 19, Latino man, aged 50-64
The idea sounds good, but what is the wait to get in to such a program that offers that kind of help? You could
get on a list and wait years. You could get on a list in 2020, but you don’t get in until 2024.
—Participant 14, Black man, aged 50-64
I think it would probably work in my situation. Yeah, because the other one had support and I don’t want people
all up in my household living.
—Participant 10, Native American woman, aged 18-24
A lot of people would feel good getting some assistance and not having people on our back. If one could feel free
to make decisions [about their housing]... People feel good being independent.
—Participant 32 Latino man, aged 25-39
Discussion
Participants in the focus groups repeatedly took personal responsibility for their homelessness, describing themselves as
lazy or irresponsible. Others described feeling worthless or ashamed. Yet looking across the narratives, structural
patterns emerge that reflect the ways that systems work in mutually reinforcing ways to produce the racial disparities in
the homeless population. Participants described structural barriers—in education, accumulated adverse health impacts,
mass incarceration, and generational poverty—that precipitated homelessness. Through this analysis, it became clear
that when structural racism is not pinpointed as a root of homelessness for Black, Native Americans, and people of color,
it is lived and systemically constructed as a personal failure.
The disproportionate number of people of color who are experiencing homelessness results from structural racism, with
origins in manifest destiny, slavery, redlining, mass incarceration, and displacement. The REIA focus groups highlighted a
lifetime of racial discrimination accumulated in the experiences of homeless Black, Native American, and other people of
color. These include experiences of mass incarceration, barriers to education, adverse health impacts, generational
poverty, and the loss of family and other networks of social and economic support.
Participants in the racial equity focus groups frequently described family and friends as providing economic and housing
stability during times of insecurity. At the same time, the cumulative impact of structural racism may thin or distress
these networks and make Black, Native American, and people of color vulnerable to homelessness.
The Bay Area’s housing crisis’s economic features are well documented: stagnant wages, particularly for the lowest-paid
workers in a high-cost, low vacancy housing market. The racial equity focus groups show that the impact of structural
racism in homeless people’s lives—mass incarceration, barriers to education, and adverse health impacts, to name a
few—makes it difficult to increase income.
The race equity focus groups heard that race-neutral housing application requirements form barriers to accessing
housing and how these requirements disproportionately impact Black and Native American people. These include, but
are not limited to, credit histories, bank account information, and extended residential histories.
The race equity focus groups affirmed the Point in Time count survey finding that homeless people have ties to the
communities where they experience homelessness. Many reported growing up or raising children in the communities
where they are now homeless. At the same time, the high cost of housing means that like many low-income households,
homeless housing programs increasingly cannot find affordable housing opportunities in Alameda County. This dynamic
disproportionately displaces Black, Native American, and other households of color from Alameda County.
A third of homeless households in Alameda County report no physical or mental health conditions, but nearly 75% have
monthly incomes less than one thousand dollars. While the link between homelessness and poor health is well
documented, it should not be equated with intensive ongoing support service needs. Participants in the racial equity
focus groups looked forward to living independently in housing they could afford, without intensive—or invasive—case
management.
System Strategies to Advance Equity
The REIA found that the homeless response system does not have the interventions needed to permanently rehouse
people experiencing homelessness. Reducing disparities and improving outcomes for the racial and ethnic groups most
impacted by homelessness will require adding new types of programs to the homeless response system, increasing all
programs’ availability, and improving program design and delivery.
Opportunities to Increase Racial Equity in the Homeless Response System Model
• Increase the availability of homeless housing for people with extremely low incomes and high service needs.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is the only form of deeply subsidized housing available in the homeless
response system. Long lengths of time homeless and a disability are required to qualify for this type of housing,
which includes intensive, coordinated services. PSH works very well to help formerly homeless people with
disabilities and long histories of homelessness to obtain permanent housing and prevent returns to
homelessness. Because PSH works well, there are very few PSH units available each year. During FFY 2019, only
221 households exited PSH, a turnover rate of just 8%.26 There is not enough PSH to serve all extremely low-
income, disabled households experiencing chronic homelessness. For this reason, the modeling recommends
increasing the amount of PSH available in the homeless response system to accommodate 25% of households
with only adults and 10% of households with minor children.
• Develop homeless housing opportunities for people with extremely low incomes and low ongoing service
needs. The REIA focus groups identified a gap in resources for extremely low-income households with low
ongoing support service needs. Structural racism has a significant economic impact due to histories of
incarceration, barriers to education, and employment discrimination, among other situations. Focus group
participants described a need for Dedicated Affordable Housing, a form of deeply subsidized housing for
homeless people that does not require a disability to qualify. The model anticipates that 28% of households with
only adults and 30% of households with minor children could end their homelessness with a deep housing
subsidy and limited support services.
• Develop subsidized housing models for people with low incomes. The REIA focus groups and provider input
reinforced research that shows a growing number of Alameda County households are barely making ends
meet.27 Focus group participants drew attention to the gap between what they can earn and high housing costs.
In response, the model creates Shallow Subsidies. Shallow rental subsidies provide a small amount of money to
bridge the gap between income and rent. The model anticipates 13% of households with only adults and 21% of
households with minor children could end their homelessness with a shallow subsidy.
• Create targeted homelessness prevention and rapid resolution resources. To respond to the intensifying,
racially disproportionate inflow of people into homelessness, the model recommends investment in prevention
resources targeted toward households most at risk of becoming homeless. Prevention resources include flexible
funds, which can be used for car repair, back rent or utility bills, or stabilizing an extended family unit to keep
one or more household members from becoming homeless. Flexible funds should not be restricted to one-time
only. Prevention also takes ongoing shallow subsidies to address the gap between a household’s earned income
and high housing costs. This approach recognizes persistent shortfalls in income for households living from
paycheck-to-paycheck and struggling to cover housing and basic living expenditures at their earned wage levels.
Targeted prevention should look for opportunities to stabilize the extended family unit or household, not just
the person(s) experiencing homelessness.
• Targeted use of temporary supports. Both the quantitative and qualitative components of the REIA made clear
that one-time or temporary supports may fall short of realizing long-term housing stability for the highest-need
households served in the homeless response system. These include households with long histories of
homelessness, high service needs, and extremely low-income households with limited opportunities to increase
income. This challenge is particularly acute for households of color due to racism in the employment sector and
accumulated structural barriers. At the same time, the homeless response system model affirms RRH as an
intervention that can be successful for as many as 13% of households. For this reason, the modeling
recommends targeting RRH to households that show potential to increase their income and extending the
timeline from six-to-nine months to 12 months. Additionally, the model plans for backstops that will help
households that try RRH only to realize they need ongoing financial or service supports.
• Create homeless housing opportunities throughout the county. REIA highlighted the acutely limited housing
options available in Alameda County for extremely low-income people. As a consequence, quantitative and
qualitative research demonstrate the mounting pressure on low-income people to find more affordable housing
elsewhere. The homeless response system must not participate in displacing low-income communities of color
from Alameda County. Creating homeless housing opportunities throughout Alameda County will allow
participants to choose to live in the communities where they work, have social support networks, and receive
services.
• Increase access by lowering programmatic barriers to participation in crisis services. The equity focus groups
highlighted the value and need for low-barrier crisis response services. These include supports for unsheltered
households such as safe parking, laundry, hygiene services, storage, and street outreach. Lowering barriers to
crisis response services also means taking a critical eye to restrictions, including but not limited to curfews,
storage, and food. Likewise, ensuring that programs can accommodate a variety of family units, including adult-
only households with multiple adults, such as parents and adult children, as well as partners and spouses.
• Increase Independence and Autonomy. Participants in the racial equity focus groups described wanting to live
in environments where they could access support and retain independence and privacy. This recognition
appears in the program models as an emphasis on voluntary support services provided by staff trained to
understand structural racism and provide anti-racist support.
• Improve Communication. The REIA showed that too often, participants receive inconsistent messages and
incorrect information. The homeless response system must communicate clearly and with one voice about
available resources, eligibility criteria, and the process for accessing resources.
Responding to homelessness as an outcome of structural racism will change how the homeless response system engages
homeless people from frontline services to management to executive decision making. The racial equity lens also
clarifies that ending homelessness will require social and structural changes beyond the boundaries of the homeless
response system. Even so, the homeless response system must seize this moment to implement the changes daylighted
through this analysis: naming structural racism, identifying the barriers that impact homeless people of color, and
implementing structural solutions.
Inventory Recommendations Households with Only Adults
The inventory recommendations for households with only adults are premised on the implementation of the REIA
recommendations. These recommendations include calibrating new and existing programs to the REIA-informed
program designs to reduce the barriers homeless people of color encounter in program policies and procedures. As well,
the resource pathways are proportioned to respond to the needs identified in the REIA. Resource pathways are designed
to ensure that the homeless response system has enough of the right resources to end homelessness for households
with only adults, and particularly Black and Native American households disproportionately represented in the homeless
adult population.
Homeless households with only adults include an estimated 91.4%, or 12,005 households, and are the majority of
people experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Households with only adults are disproportionately Black (58%)
and Native American (three percent) as compared with the general population of Alameda County (11% Black, one
percent Native American).
The diagram below illustrates resource pathways designed to respond to the root causes of homelessness and barriers
to housing stability that the REIA identified. These resource pathways must be available in a high-performing homeless
response system to end homelessness for Black and Native American adults, who encounter the greatest barriers to
housing and disproportionately return to homelessness.
While some homeless households will stay in a Crisis Response Program—emergency shelters, safe havens, domestic
violence shelters, and transitional housing—before permanently becoming permanently housed, the homeless response
system in Alameda County expects to directly connect unsheltered homeless households to permanent housing without
a stay in a crisis response program. Participants in the REIA focus groups highlighted the positive benefits homeless
people experience from crisis services, including street outreach, mobile health clinics, laundry, showers, and meal
programs. The dashed lines represent pathways for unsheltered households, and the solid lines represent pathways for
sheltered households. The model presumes that roughly 10% of households with only adults will either “self-resolve”
their homelessness by finding resources in their personal networks to end their homelessness, or the system will lose
touch with them.
Figure 13: Resource Pathways for Households with Only Adults
The resource pathways for households with only adults are inclusive of the needs of households fleeing domestic
violence and chronically homeless households. Transition Aged Youth and Seniors have unique pathways.
Transition Aged Youth (TAY) aged 18-24 make up 12% of households with only adults in Alameda County. The
community decided to address the needs of TAY within the system and program models generally until it is possible to
do an intensive youth-focused modeling process with extensive participation from young adults aged 18-24. In the
model for households with only adults, TAY will be served in the following ways:
• Homelessness Prevention/Rapid Resolution programs provide an ongoing income-contingent, long-term subsidy
to people with jobs who need a subsidy to afford rent.
• Transitional Housing for Youth programs are specialized to serve young adults for 12 months in transitional
housing and then through an ongoing shallow subsidy linked to the recipient’s income.
• RRH programs will serve TAY who can increase their income to afford rent with an 18-month rental subsidy. This
pathway presumes that TAY may find shared housing situations and/or increase their income so they can
assume the full rent at the end of the subsidy period. A small percent of TAY households in RRH will need a
Permanent Supportive Housing backstop because of more intensive service needs.
Seniors and adults aged 55 and older make up about 30% of households with only adults. The model anticipates that
seniors will be served in the following ways:
• Dedicated Affordable Housing is responsive to older adults living independently on fixed incomes. Seniors will
access Dedicated Affordable Housing from sheltered and unsheltered homeless living situations.
• PSH for Seniors is a more service-intensive version of PSH for formerly homeless adults who can no longer live
independently. Because the homeless and the formerly homeless population is aging, the models presume 10%
of households with only adults will need a higher level of care offered by PSH for Seniors.
Households with Only Adults: Leveling Up
Bringing the REIA-informed resource model to fruition involves “leveling up” the current system, which means reshaping
the current homeless response system to match the REIA-informed system model. To do this, the community must add
capacity in the areas where the system is under-resourced. Currently, the homeless response system has the greatest
capacity in its Crisis Response interventions. This is not to say that the system has all the residential Crisis Response
resources it will ever need to end homelessness. Instead, it is to say that bringing all the homeless response system
resources into proportion with the existing amount of residential Crisis Response resources will generate flow through
the system and enable the existing Crisis Response resources to function better. Indeed, at the writing of this report in
August 2020, the average length of stay in a shelter is 171 days. To reach model performance level, the system must
build up the permanent housing resources and homelessness prevention interventions to match the current level of
residential Crisis Response capacity. Doing so will enable the residential Crisis Response resources to function at a higher
level, serving four households each year for a 90-day average length of stay.
Importantly, the REIA showed that the homeless response system does not have homeless prevention and permanent
housing interventions that work for the disproportionately Black and Native American households experiencing
homelessness. Leveling up the under-resourced parts of the homeless response system by creating programs tailored to
the root causes of homelessness among Black and Native Americans is designed to create more equitable outcomes.
Leveling up the current system to realize a more effective and equitable system represents the beginning of ongoing
work:
• Adding capacity in alignment with the REIA-informed inventory recommendations in the system model.
• Re-calibrating programs to the equity standards in the program models.
• Ongoing evaluation to ensure that the remodeled homeless response system is producing more equitable
outcomes.
• Continuous improvement of the program and inventory models to respond to racial and ethnic disparities as
they are identified.
The Level Up Calculator for households with Only Adults shows the type of resources and the number of units needed to
align the homeless response system with the number of Crisis Response units currently available in the system. Crisis
Response includes emergency shelters, transitional housing (excluding youth TH), safe-havens, and domestic violence
shelters. Safe parking is not included because a systemwide count of inventory as not taken place.
All inventory in the Level Up Calculator is represented in units that correspond with the maximum number of
households that can be served at a time. For permanent supportive housing, PSH for Seniors, Dedicated Affordable
Housing, and Shallow Subsidy, the 2020 inventory in the Level Up Calculator is the number of units—new or as
turnover—expected to be available over a year. The “level up cost” applies cost estimates generated by a working group
of funders and providers. Aligning the homeless response system to meet adult-only households’ needs will cost an
estimated $211 million (rounded).
Figure 14: Level Up Calculator for Households with Only Adults
The 2020 HIC provides a pre-COVID-19 point-in-time snapshot of the system inventory. At the writing of this report, the
COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated decompressing congregate Crisis Response residences. Nonetheless, an Annual
Performance Report of these crisis shelter programs shows that as of July 29, 2020, the number of households with only
adults being served in crisis shelter programs has increased from 1,357 capacity reported in the HIC to 1,515
households. The above recommendations can be considered conservative, considering this expansion in shelter
occupancy.
Households with Only Adults: Scaling Up
Once the homeless response system is proportionately aligned with the model, it can be brought to a scale capable of
addressing the population needs of homeless households with only adults. The below chart shows the package of
homeless prevention, crisis shelter, and permanent housing resources needed to serve each additional 100 homeless
households with only adults.
The resource package describes interconnections between homelessness prevention, crisis shelter, and permanent
housing resources. New resources cannot be added as modular components. An equitable and effective homelessness
response requires planners, funders, providers, and elected leaders to develop a coherent and proportionate system of
interrelated pathways. Permanent housing resources must accompany investments in crisis response for the system to
achieve flow and perform at a higher, more equitable level.
Some of the inventory will serve multiple households. For example, each unit of emergency shelter will serve four
households each year for three months each, for a combined total of 48 households annually. Because some households
will use more than one, the interventions will not total 100. Cost estimates are estimated by a working group of funders
and include funders’ and subcontractors’ administrative costs. Multi-year estimates include a three percent cost of living
adjustment compounded year after year.
Figure 15: What 100 Households with Adults Only Need in a Year
The modeling workbook allows the community to adjust three variables: inflow into homelessness, returns to
homelessness, and level of investment. The variables can be adjusted to match the current situation or project the
impact of changes in these variables. Because of these inputs, the modeling workbooks are dynamic and powerful tools
for planning. At the same time, it is important to notice that even as the community process worked to build the REIA
into the system model structures, the modeling workbooks alone are not enough to ensure racially equitable outcomes.
Ongoing evaluation and community accountability are required to fully implement the REIA recommendations
throughout the system, remove barriers, identify latent or emerging racial disparities, and course-correct. This is the
work ahead.
To illustrate the model’s utility as a planning tool, Figure 16 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless
system represented in the model will improve the rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate
of returns to homelessness by three percent each year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into
the homeless response system maintains at 20%, close to the inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between
2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in
year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and $250,000 in year five. The total combined cost of
Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Figure 16 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 16: Scenario 1, Investment Impact Dashboard, Households with Only Adults
Using the variables in Figure 16, the models show an increase in homelessness in year two at 16,218 households with
only adults. Unmet need steadily declines year after year until reaching functional zero, no unmet need, in year five.
Figure 17 describes the additional units needed each year in Scenario 1. Some of these resources will serve multiple
homeless households that year, such as Homeless Prevention and Rapid Resolution, Crisis Response, and Transitional
Housing for Youth. Other resources are likely to serve only one household, including Permanent Supportive Housing,
PSH for Seniors, Dedicated Affordable Housing, and Shallow Subsidies.
Figure 17: Scenario 1, Entire CoC 5-Year Inventory Needs, Households with Only Adults
There is good reason to think that an infusion of significant, new investment in alignment with the REIA-informed
program models and inventory recommendations can produce a more equitable and effective response to
homelessness. The model shows that the proportion of households that exit homelessness to permanent housing
(Annual Exits/Annual HH in the System) will increase from 37% to 100% in year five. The proportion of households
returning to homelessness will decrease. These outcomes—obtaining and retaining permanent housing—are directly
targeted to improve outcomes among homeless Black and Native Americans, who encounter structural barriers to
obtaining housing and return to homelessness at disproportionately high rates.
Yet even as the strategy in Scenario 1 supports a homeless response system that works better for the people it serves,
investment alone will not end homelessness. As showing in Figure 16, an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda
County, particularly Black and Native American adults, will continue to experience homelessness because of the high
inflow rate. Inflow will not abate without addressing structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages that
drive homelessness in Alameda County.
Scenario 2 provides a point of comparison. Figure 18 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as in Scenario 1,
assuming that retention will quickly improve, reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth
year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2
adds $50 million of new investment each year. The combined cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up is $956 million over five
years.
Figure 18: Scenario 2, Investment Impact Dashboard, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 shows a homeless response system that is gradually improving. Unmet need, the proportion of all households
that remain homeless from one year to the next (Annual Remaining/Annual HH in the System) declines from 63% to 30%
over five years. The proportion of households that obtain permanent housing increases to 70% in year five, and housing
retention improves to seven percent.
Nonetheless, the number of households experiencing homelessness increases each year (Annual HH in the System)
reaches 22,336 homeless households with only adults in year five. This is an 86% increase over the total number of
households estimated to experience homelessness in 2020. In Scenario 2 the system does not reach functional zero, no
unmet need, in five years. Even as the homeless response system becomes more efficient, the high inflow rate and a
gradual investment strategy means that households are homeless longer and more people are homeless at a point in
time.
Figure 19: Scenario 2, Entire CoC 5-Year Inventory Needs, Households with Only Adults
The side-by-side charts in Figure 20 represent the different impacts of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in the homeless
population: annual population (blue), exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining homelessness (green). These
graphs show that significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time, both
scenarios indicate that thousands of adults will continue to experience homelessness each year, even after five years of
aggressive investment. These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in particular, Black and
Native American people. Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and
housing shortfalls—homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda County.
Figure 20: Investment Impact Comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in Households with Only Adults
Households with Only Adults: Regional Models
Regional models that divide the estimated homeless population into the Continuum of Care’s sub-geographic areas
using the 2019 Point in Time Count can be found in the appendices. Both Scenario 1 and 2 are available for each of the
five CoC sub-geographic regions. These regional estimates make three important assumptions:
1. Household compositions and needs are relatively consistent across the CoC.
2. The inflow of people into homelessness is consistent across the CoC.
3. Rates of returns to homelessness are consistent across sub-geographic regions.
At the writing of this report, the CoC does not have baseline inventory data for each region. As a result, it is difficult to
provide accurate estimates of additional units needed in each region. The below table shows the additional permanent
housing inventory needed in Scenario 1, which reaches functional zero. The inventory needs are divided into the five
sub-geographic regions using the population distribution from the 2019 Point in Time Count.
Figure 21: Scenario 1, Total New Units Needed by Year 5 by Geography, Households with Only Adults
In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more detailed understanding
of regional similarities and differences in the characteristics and needs of homeless households in each community, the
inflow rates and returns to homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Inventory Recommendations Households with Minor Children
This report’s inventory recommendations for households with minor children provide a blueprint of the community’s
best thinking toward addressing the equity gaps in the homeless response system. Based on findings from the REIA, the
inventory recommendations allocate resources in ways designed to remove structural barriers and create opportunities
for homeless families with minor children, and in particular the Black and Native American households over-represented
in the homeless population.
Households with minor children make up 7.5% of all households experiencing homelessness, with an estimated 985
households with minor children experiencing homelessness each year in the Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County
Continuum of Care. Homeless families with minor children are disproportionately Black (55%) and Native American (5%)
as compared with the general population of Alameda County (11% and one percent respectively).
Figure 22 illustrates the resource pathways for families that the community designed to be responsive to the root causes
of homelessness and barriers to housing stability identified in the REIA. These resource pathways represent the
community’s best thinking about the resources needed to produce greater equity in a high functioning homeless
response system.
Figure 22: Resource Pathways for Households with Minor Children
The working group that focused on households with minor children began from the premise that the vast majority, if not
all homeless families with minor children, would use residential crisis response programs like shelter and transitional
housing if those programs are carefully calibrated to their needs. Details on the features of crisis response programs that
homeless families need can be found in Appendix D. Like the pathways for households with only adults, this set of
pathways assumes that 10% of households “self-resolve” their homelessness or lose contact with the system. The
pathway diagram shows that Shallow Subsidies, Dedicated Affordable Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing are
the interventions that need the most significant investment.
Households with Minor Children: Leveling Up
Bringing the REIA-informed resource model to fruition involves two steps, including “leveling up” the current homeless
response system to align with the model and then “scaling up” the homeless response to serve the entire population of
families experiencing homelessness. Leveling up is reshaping the current system response to match the REIA-informed
model system for serving families with minor children. To do this, the CoC must add capacity in the areas where the
family system is under-resourced.
Currently, the systemic response to homeless families has the greatest capacity in its Crisis Response, followed closely by
Rapid Re-Housing. Crisis Response includes emergency shelter, transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters. The
system has a greater capacity in Crisis Response and RRH, but that does not mean that the family system has all the
Crisis Response or RRH resources it will ever need to end homelessness. Instead, it is to say that building up the
permanent housing and homeless prevention resources will create flow through the system and enable the existing
Crisis Response and RRH resources to function more efficiently. For example, adding PSH and Dedicated Affordable
Housing resources will provide a permanent housing backstop that is modeled for families with minor children in RRH.
The community anticipates that this backstop will reduce the number of families that return to homelessness from RRH.
Once again, the REIA showed that the homeless response system currently does not have the kinds of homelessness
prevention and permanent housing interventions that will work in the long term for homeless families that are
disproportionately Black, Native American, and other people of color. These include Short Term and Ongoing Homeless
Prevention and Rapid Resolution programs, Shallow Subsidies, and Dedicated Affordable Housing. Leveling up the
homeless response system by creating programs tailored to the root causes of homelessness among Black and Native
American families with minor children is expected to create more equitable outcomes. Adding inventory to the current
system to realize a more effective and equitable system is just the beginning, however. Ongoing work includes:
• Adding capacity in alignment with the REIA-informed inventory recommendations in the system model.
• Re-calibrating existing programs and developing new programs to meet the equity standards in the program
models.
• Measuring performance to verify the remodeled homeless response system produces equitable outcomes.
• Continuous improvement of the program and inventory models to respond to racial disparities and barriers as
they are identified.
The Level Up Calculator shows the types and quantity of units needed to bring the systemic response to homeless
families into alignment with the REIA informed model. All the numbers represent units or the maximum number of
households with minor children that can be served at a given time. The 2020 Inventory for Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH), Dedicated Affordable Housing, and Shallow Subsidy are shown as the number of units—new or
turnover—expected to be available over a year.
The model for households with minor children includes a surge of 246 PSH units for homeless households with minor
children who have experienced long lengths of time homeless. The “Level up cost” column applies cost estimates for
each intervention type that were generated by a working group of funders and providers. Aligning the homeless
response system to meet the needs of homeless households with minor children, including a surge in Permanent
Supportive Housing, will cost an estimated $18 million (rounded).
Figure 23: Level Up Calculator for Households with Minor Children
At the writing of this report, the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated decompressing congregate shelter and
transitional housing environments. Nonetheless, an Annual Performance Report of Crisis Response programs shows that
as of July 29, 2020, the number of households with minor children being served in shelters is 123, 36 households fewer
than the capacity of 159 reported in the 2020 HIC. There is good reason to think that current occupancy, even with
congregate decompression, is comparable to what is reported in the HIC. For one, the HIC includes all inventory, while
the APR reports occupancy. Occupancy may be lower than the decompressed inventory if, for example, a shelter slot
was unoccupied at the quarterly Point in Time count on July 29, 2020. The HIC includes domestic violence shelter
capacity, while the APR does not include domestic violence shelter occupancy. For these reasons, it is reasonable to
think that crisis response inventory for households with minor children during COVID-19 is comparable to pre-COVID-19
capacity and that the above recommendations remain accurate.
Households with Minor Children: Scaling Up
Once the homeless response system that serves homeless families with minor children is aligned with the model, it can
be brought to a scale capable of addressing the needs of all households with minor children. The below chart shows the
package of prevention, crisis shelter, and permanent housing resources needed to serve 100 households with minor
children.
Figure 24: What 100 Households with Adults and Children Need in a Year
Importantly, homeless families need prevention, crisis response, and permanent housing resources that interconnect to
meet their needs and create pathways out of homelessness. Adding resources in ways that reinforce those pathways will
lead to a more effective and equitable homeless response. The 100-household package of resources describes the
interrelationship between homelessness prevention, crisis shelter, and permanent housing resources that homeless
families need. Planners and funders, the Continuum of Care, Alameda County, cities, and philanthropies must invest in
the combined package of resources to produce a coherent system that performs efficiently and equitably.
Some of the inventory will serve multiple households. For example, each emergency shelter slot will serve four
households each year for three months each, serving a total of 88 households annually. As well, some households will
use more than one intervention. For this reason, the chart does not add up to 100. Cost estimates are determined by a
working group of funders and service providers, describe the cost per household served, and include funders’ and
subcontractors’ administrative costs, operating costs, but exclude capital costs. The cost to maintain housing for
households in permanent housing over four years includes a three percent cost of living adjustment compounded year
after year.
The modeling workbooks are powerful tools for planning because they can be adjusted to reflect different rates of
inflow, returns, and investment. Still, it is critical to remember that even as the community process worked to build the
REIA into the system model structures, the modeling workbooks alone are not enough to ensure racially equitable
outcomes. Ongoing evaluation and community accountability are required to implement the REIA recommendations,
remove barriers, identify emerging racial disparities, and course-correct. This is the work that lies ahead.
Figure 25: Scenario 1, Investment Impact Dashboard, Households with Minor Children
As an example, Figure 25 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistically high, maintaining at 20%, close to the
22% inflow rate Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled homeless
system is more equitable than the current system, resulting in an improved permanent housing retention rate. The rate
of returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant investment of $13 million in year one and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year three, $2 million
in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total combined cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the response for
homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Using the variables in Scenario 1, the CoC could see an increase in the annual number of homeless households with
minor children that peaks in year two at 1,222 households. Unmet need declines year after year, achieving functional
zero in five years. Figure 26 describes the additional Point in Time inventory needed each year according to the
investment strategy, inflow, and returns to homelessness defined in Scenario 1. Some of these resources will serve
multiple homeless families with minor children that year, such as homeless Prevention/Rapid Resolution and Crisis
Response programs. Other resources are likely to serve only one household, including Permanent Supportive Housing,
Dedicated Affordable Housing, and Shallow Subsidies.
Figure 26: Scenario 1, Entire CoC 5-Year Inventory Needs, Households with Minor Children
Significant new investments in alignment with the REIA-informed program models and inventory recommendations are
likely to produce a more equitable and effective response to homelessness. The proportion of households that exit
homelessness to permanent housing (Annual Exits/Annual HH in the System) will increase from 37% to 100%. The
proportion of households returning to homelessness will gradually decrease. The number of families with minor children
who return to homelessness will decrease. Increasing the number of households that obtain and retain permanent
housing are key performance targets that are essential to improving outcomes for homeless Black and Native American
families, who encounter structural barriers to obtaining housing and return to homelessness at disproportionately high
rates.
Yet even as the homeless response system becomes more effective, the number of households with minor children
experiencing homelessness each year remains unacceptably high. The steady and elevated inflow rate into
homelessness disproportionately impacts Black and Native American households with minor children. Changing the
inflow rate depends upon addressing structural conditions—racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages—that
drive the intensification of homelessness across the CoC.
Changing the inputs in turn changes in the model changes the trajectory of homelessness. Scenarion 2 shown in Figure
27 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 changes the investment strategy to add $6 million
of new investment each year. The total combined cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million
(rounded).
Figure 27: Scenario 2, Investment Impact Dashboard, Households with Minor Children
This scenario shows annual increases in the number of households with minor children that are homeless each year
(Annual HH in the System). In year five, 1,857 families experience homelessness. Unmet need or the proportion of all
households that remain homeless from one year to the next (Annual Remaining/Annual HH in the System) declines from
63% to 37%. Still, it continues to impact hundreds of families each year. In sum, families will remain homeless for longer,
and the number of homeless families will double in five years.
Figure 28: Scenario 2, Entire CoC 5-Year Inventory Needs, Households with Minor Children
The additional investment described in Scenario 2, if made in alignment with the REIA-informed program models and
inventory needs shown above, will result in a more effective homeless response over five years. Yet even as the
homeless response system becomes more effective in Scenario 2, the number of households with minor children that
experience homelessness each year remains high because of the rates of inflow and unmet need. Without significant
investment and addressing the root causes of homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and housing shortfalls—
homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of households with minor children in Alameda County.
Figure 29 shows the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 side-by-side for comparison of the annual number of homeless
households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and the number
of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs show that the
investment scenario matters. Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with
minor children.
Figure 30: Total New Units Needed by Year 5 by Geography, Households with Minor Children
Figure 31: Total New Units Needed by Year 5 by Geography, Households with Minor Children
Figure 32: Total New Units Needed by Year 5 by Geography, Households with Minor Children
Both scenarios show that hundreds of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year
in Alameda County. These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American
households. Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing
shortages, is intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Households with Minor Children: Regional Models
Regional models that divide the estimated homeless population into the Continuum of Care’s sub-geographic areas
using the 2019 Point in Time Count can be found in the appendices. Both Scenario 1 and 2 are available for each of the
five CoC sub-geographic regions. The regional estimates make three important assumptions:
1. Household compositions and needs are relatively consistent across the CoC.
2. The inflow rate into homelessness is consistent across the CoC.
3. Rates of returns to homelessness are consistent across sub-geographic regions.
At the writing of this report, the CoC does not have baseline inventory data for each region. As a result, it is difficult to
provide accurate estimates of the number of additional units needed in each region. The below table shows the total
additional units of permanent housing needed to serve households with minor children in Scenario 1, which reaches
functional zero. The inventory needs are divided into the five sub-geographic regions using the population distribution
from the 2019 Point in Time Count.
In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS and additional data collection may provide a more detailed understanding
of the regional similarities and differences in the characteristics and needs of homeless households in each community,
the inflow rate and returns to homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Figure 29: Investment Impact Comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in Households with Minor Children
Next Steps
The work of developing a racially equitable and effective homeless response system is only beginning. Bringing racial
equity into the fabric of homeless system planning is a critical innovation. It will also take ongoing effort and
determination to put racial equity at the center of every aspect of the homeless system. As a starting place, the
Continuum of Care is committed to disaggregating performance outcomes by race. Consistently disaggregating
performance outcomes by race will help the CoC identify and respond to racial disparities and evaluate progress toward
a racially equitable system. Also, stakeholders can begin implementing the program model recommendations, deeply
informed by the Racial Equity Impact Analysis. The program models’ structures and practices can be developed into
policies, incorporated into contracts, and measured using the Results Based Accountability framework.
A high performing and racially equitable homeless system of care will require significantly more resources to address
service gaps. Stakeholders must develop coordinated funding strategies. These include creating a reliable funding source
to expand permanent supportive housing, shallow subsidies, and dedicated affordable housing. The Home Together
general sales tax ballot initiative that passed in November 2020, is a promising new revenue stream. The CoC, among
other concerned stakeholders, will need to work closely with the Alameda County government to ensure that the funds
are used in alignment with the inventory recommendations and program models developed through the REIA and
system modeling process.
Additionally, the community does not have a system-wide inventory of deeply affordable housing earmarked for
homeless households, though some of this type of housing exists. Adding Dedicated Affordable Housing to the HMIS and
filling those units through coordinated entry will provide a way of tracking the development of this housing type and
ensuring that vacancies are filled with another homeless household. Increasing the inventory of deeply affordable
housing will also require obtaining and developing new housing. Strategies for adding deeply affordable housing include
Low-income Housing Tax Credits and Community Land Trusts, among others.
The Racial Equity Impact Analysis focus groups can be resumed and expanded to capture insight into what works (and
doesn’t) for LGBTQI+ people and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, as an example of two perspectives not captured in
the first round of focus groups that was cut short by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finally, the models are dynamic and can be adjusted annually as new information about the homeless population
becomes available, and as new resources are implemented. An annual process of updating the models will provide a
current gaps analysis and allow the CoC to track progress toward fully implementing the models. These measures should
be interpreted against racial equity performance outcomes, including but not limited to the racial and ethnic
composition of inflow and returns to homelessness.
The racially equitable and effective homeless response system that is the goal of this report is best understood as an
ongoing set of actions rather than a static structure. Making it a reality and keeping it going through intentional actions
is the most important kind of work. That work starts now.
Acknowledgements
EveryOne Home authored this report on behalf of the Continuum of Care, with co-author support on the Racial Equity
Impact Analysis from Alameda County Public Health Department and Social Services Agency. Thank you, Jessica
Shimmin, Alexis Lozano, Liz Maker, Tammy Lee, and Emile Durette.
Thanks to Colleen Chawla, of Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Mayor Libby Schaaf of the City of Oakland,
and Doug Biggs, of the Continuum of Care Committee for co-chairing and championing the Racial Equity Impact Analysis
and Homeless System Modeling project.
The EveryOne Home Leadership Board embraced this project, weaving the framework into the Measure W ballot
initiative and Continuum of Care governance charter. Thank you for launching and sustaining the momentum.
Thanks to the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
supporting the community’s vision of infusing racial equity in system planning and for making this project possible with a
generous technical assistance grant.
Abt Associates facilitated the modeling process with sharp analysis, graphics, and an appetite for problem solving. Thank
you, Joyce Probst MacAlpine, Stephanie Reinauer, Puneet Kaur, and Meghan Takashima.
The following organizations participated in the Leadership Committee:
Abode Services
Alameda County Administrator's Office
Alameda County District 1, Supervisor Haggerty's Office
Alameda County District 2, Supervisor Valle's Office
Alameda County District 3, Supervisor Chan's Office
Alameda County District 4, Supervisor Miley's Office
Alameda County District 5, Supervisor Carson's Office
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
Alameda County Housing and Community Development
Agency
Alameda County Social Services Agency
All Home
ALL IN Alameda County Youth Action Board
Bay Area Community Services
Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, UCSF
Berkeley Housing Authority
City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Berkeley
City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
City of Hayward
City of Livermore
City of Oakland
City of San Leandro
Consumers of Homeless Services
Crankstart
EveryOne Home Leadership Board
Housing Authority of Alameda County
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
Kaiser Permanente
Livermore City Council
Livermore Housing Authority
Mayor of Fremont, Lily Mei
Mayor of Livermore, John Marchand
Mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf
Veteran Affairs Network Homeless Coordinator
Northern California VA
Oakland City Council
Oakland Housing Authority
Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care’s
HUD CoC Committee
University of California San Francisco
Each of the following organizations contributed countless hours of staff time to develop the homeless system models in
the working groups:
Abode Services
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
Alameda County Housing & Community Development
Agency
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Alameda Point Collaborative
All Home
ALL IN Alameda County
ALL IN Alameda County Youth Action Board
Bay Area Community Services
Berkeley Food and Housing Project
Building Futures
City of Alameda
City of Berkeley
City of Fremont
City of Livermore
City of Oakland
Covenant House
East Oakland Community Project
EveryOne Home Leadership Board
Family Violence Law Center
First Five Alameda County
Housing Consortium of the East Bay
LifeLong Medical Care
Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care
Roots Community Health Center
Ruby’s Place
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
St. Mary’s Center
South Hayward Parish
Supervisor Carson’s Office
Supervisor Chan’s Office
UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland
The Racial Equity Impact Analysis and this report would not exist without the steadfast support of the City of Oakland’s
Office of Race and Equity, EveryOne Home Leadership Board, EveryOne Home staff on behalf of the Continuum of Care,
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency’s Department of Public Health and Office of Homeless Care and
Coordination, Alameda County Social Services Agency, and Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan’s Office. Specific
thanks to:
Ayanna Allen
Emile Durette
Darlene Flynn
Sandi Galvez
Mara Goby
Laura Guzman
Tammy Lee
Alexis Lozano
Liz Maker
Andrew Nelson
Susan Shelton
Jessica Shimmin
Sarah Ting
The following organizations recruited persons with lived experience of homelessness for the Racial Equity Impact
Analysis Focus Groups:
ALL IN Alameda County Youth Action Board
BANANAS
Bay Area Community Services
City of Livermore
Intertribal Friendship House
Open Heart Kitchen
ROOTS Community Health Center
St. Mary’s Center
Thank you to the City of Oakland, Alameda County Department of Public Health, and Alameda County-Oakland
Community Action Partnership, Open Heart Kitchen and CityServe who provided food and compensation for the focus
group participants with lived experience of homelessness.
Deep and humble thanks to the people with current or former experiences of homelessness for sharing your stories in
the focus groups. Your insights are the foundation of this plan.
Appendix A: Racial Equity Impact Analysis Focus Groups
Demographics
A total of 53 individuals participated in the focus groups, provided below is more on the composition of the participants.
17%17%13%
40%
11%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
18-24 25-39 40-49 50-64 65+Prefer not to
state
Focus Group Participant by Age
47%
53%
Focus Group Participants by
Gender
Female
Male 34%
66%
Focus Group Participants by Current
Literal Homelessness Status
No
Yes
34%
13%11%11%
4%2%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Focus Group Participants by Race/Ethnicity
Systems Modeling and Equity Focus Groups Background
Focus Group Advantages
▪
▪
▪
Focus Group Disadvantages
▪
▪
▪
Key Focus group roles
Moderator
▪
▪
▪
Notetaker
▪
▪
▪
Observer
▪
▪
Logistics Support
▪
▪
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Focus Group Recruitment
Research Question: What ideal model of the homeless services and housing system emerges from a nuanced
understanding of homeless people’s experiences, and in particular the needs of over-represented groups including
African Americans, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and Spanish speakers
Recruitment guidelines: People currently experiencing homelessness or formerly experiencing homelessness.
Homelessness is defined as staying in an emergency shelter, transitional housing for homeless people, or safe haven
program, or living outside in a place not meant for people to live such as a sidewalk, bench, park, tent, abandoned
building, vehicle, RV, etc.
Each group will have 8-12 participants, with the suggestion of recruiting 15 and having some not show.
Compensation:
• Snacks or light lunch
• Gift such as gift card or care package
Service Providers and Attendance: We recognize that some participants will feel more comfortable with a trusted
service provider in attendance. For this reason, staff members are welcomed to attend the groups in a supportive role.
Because the focus groups are intended to elicit experiences from people currently or previously experiencing
homelessness, service providers must play a listening and learning role.
Homelessness and Equity Focus Group Questionnaire
Please fill out this short questionnaire. It will help us describe who was part of this discussion group. Your individual
responses will NOT be shared – we’ll just describe the group as a whole. Thank you!
1. What is your age?
2. With what gender do you identify?
3. With what your race or ethnicity do you identify? [Mark all that apply]
4. Where have you stayed in the past 30 days? [Mark all that apply]
5. Did you have any children under age 18 living with you in the past 30 days?
System Modeling and Equity Focus Groups Moderator Role and Tips
Moderator Role
▪
➢
➢
➢
➢
➢
➢
Moderator Tips
▪
➢
➢
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
➢
➢
➢
➢
▪
▪
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
▪
➢
➢
➢
▪
➢
➢
▪
➢
➢
➢
▪
➢
➢
▪
➢
➢
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Focus Group Discussion Guide For People with Lived Expertise of Homelessness
Introduction & Purpose (4:00-4:05)
Hi. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today.
We want to hear from you because we want to create more of what works for people experiencing homelessness to
get housed and stay housed. To create a system that works, we need to be informed by you, including, because you
are the experts. We especially want to know the experience of over-represented groups including (subpopulation).
We want to hear about challenges you’ve experienced and what works. We’ll use this information to align around a
plan and spend money on things that work because we need to get it right.
There are a number of people in the room who will be taking notes on what you say. There are also staff from
[insert organization name e.g. Roots Community Health or St Mary’s Center] and some additional people working
on this project who will be observing to learn from what you say. We recognize that some participants will feel
more comfortable with a trusted service provider in attendance. For this reason, staff members are welcome to
attend in a supportive role. Because the focus groups are intended to elicit experiences of people currently or
previously experiencing homelessness, service providers must play a listening and learning role.
You will receive a $50 gift card to ______ once the session is over.
Ground Rules:
• There are no right or wrong answers.
• All responses are valued.
• It is okay to have different opinions. We do not all have to agree.
• Speak one at a time.
• We have only 90 minutes today, and we want to hear form everyone, so we may need to move on from a
topic to get through the questions.
• Do not repeat what you hear today to others outside of the group. What is said in here should stay here.
Prevention & Diversion (4:05-4:20)
We’d like to start off talking about what led to you becoming homeless and what might have prevented you from
becoming homeless.
What kinds of things made it hard to keep housed at that time?
What kinds of help do you think could have prevented you from becoming homelessness?
Crisis & Shelter Interim Services (4:20-4:35)
What services and supports are most helpful to you?
Prompt: These could include, but aren’t limited to shelter, safe parking, showers, bathrooms, meal
programs, and street outreach. They could be other things as well.
What services and supports have not been helpful to you?
(optional prompts)
• What is your experience with shelters?
• If you have lived outside, what kinds of services and supports were helpful to you? What was not helpful to
you when you were living outside?
• If you have lived in a vehicle or RV, what kinds of services and supports were helpful to you? What was not
helpful to you when you were living in a vehicle or RV?
Housing Barriers (4:35-4:50)
What has been hard for you as you try to find housing?
What challenges have you faced, now or earlier in your life, that you believe have led to you being homeless today?
Types of Housing Programs (4:50-5:05)
We’d like to get your thoughts about three different kinds of housing support for people experiencing
homelessness.
2. The first is Rapid Re-Housing.
• Rapid Re-Housing includes short-term rental assistance with help finding a place to rent, usually lasting
6-9 months.
• Types of housing could be an SRO room, shared housing with a roommate or two, or your own place.
• It’s possible that the available rental units would be outside of the City or County.
• At the end of the program, the participant(s) need to be able to pay rent on their own.
• To pay the rent on their own, participants in Rapid Re-Housing typically need to increase their income.
Based on your experience, would the short-term subsidized housing I just described work for you?
Why or why not?
3. The second kind of housing is Permanent Supportive Housing.
• This is a program for people that need long-term subsidized housing with intensive services, including
case management.
Based on your experience, would permanent supportive housing with intensive services work for you? Why
or why not?
4. The last program is called Dedicated Affordable Housing.
• Dedicated Affordable Housing is for homeless people that have low incomes but don’t need a lot of
services.
• It’s for individuals and families that are currently homeless, and they are required to pay a portion of
their income in rent- typically somewhere between 30% and 50% of the household’s monthly income.
• Examples of Dedicated Affordable Housing are Section 8.
Would this kind of permanent and affordable housing, without supportive services, work for you? Why or
why not?
Maintaining Housing & No Returns to Homelessness (5:05-5:20)
Too many people who experience homelessness return to homelessness after finding housing.
If you have become homeless, gotten housing and then lost housing again, what could have kept you from
becoming homeless again?
How do we improve our response so you can stay housed?
Closing (5:20-5:30)
Is there anything else you want us to know that hasn’t been said today?
Do you have any questions?
Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing your experience and expertise with us.
Your feedback will be helpful with planning and improving our housing services/programs.
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Racial Equity and Systems Modeling Focus Groups Notetaking Protocol
Before the
Focus Group
▪
o
o
o
o
▪
▪
▪
During the
Focus Group
▪
▪
▪
▪
o
o
o
o
Right After
the Focus
Group
▪
o
o
o
o
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Right After
the Focus
Group
(Continued)
▪
o
o
Within 5
Business
Days
▪
▪
Prepared by the Community Assessment,
Planning and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Focus Group Discussion For People with Lived Experience and Expertise
Notetaking Template
Information about Today’s Focus Group
Notetaker: Focus Group Date:
Focus Group Location:
Host Staff Present
(Name and their role in the focus group):
Racial Equity and Systems Modeling Group
Members Present
(Name and their role in the Focus Group):
Discussion Item or Question Notes
Introduction and Purpose
We want to hear from you about your experiences. What
challenges you’ve experienced and what works.
Ground Rules
• There are no right or wrong answers.
• All responses are valued.
• It is okay to have different opinions. We do not all
have to agree.
• Speak one at a time.
• We have only 90 minutes today, and we want to
hear form everyone, so we may need to move on
from a topic to get through the questions.
• Do not repeat what you hear today to others
outside of the group. What is said in here should
stay here.
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit
January 2020
Introductions (Roll Call of Who is Present)
Participant First Name or Initials Code # Comments or notes about the introductions)
Discussion Item or Question Notes
Prevention & Diversion
We’d like to start off talking about what lead to you
becoming homeless and what might have prevented you
from becoming homeless.
What kinds of things made it hard to keep housed at
that time?
What kinds of help do you think could have prevented
you from becoming homelessness?
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit
January 2020
Discussion Item or Question Notes
Crisis & Shelter Interim Services
What services and supports are most helpful to you?
Prompt: These could include, but aren’t limited to
shelter, safe parking, showers, bathrooms, meal
programs, and street outreach. They could be other
things as well.
What services and supports have not been helpful to
you?
• Experience with shelters?
• Helpful and not helpful when living outside.
• Helpful and not helpful when living in a vehicle or
RV.
Housing Barriers
What has been hard for you as you try to find
housing?
What challenges have you faced, now or earlier in your
life, that you believe have led to you being homeless
today?
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit
January 2020
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Discussion Item or Question Notes
Types of Housing Programs
1. Rapid Rehousing
Based on your experience, would the short-term
subsidized housing I just described work for you?
Why or why not?
• Short-term rental assistance with help finding a
place to rent, usually lasting 6-9 months.
• Includes an SRO room, shared housing with a
roommate or two, or your own place.
• Available rental units would be outside of the City or
County.
• At the end of the program, the participant(s) need
to be able to pay rent on their own.
• Participants in Rapid Re-Housing typically need to
increase their income.
2. Permanent Supportive Housing
Based on your experience, would permanent supportive
housing with intensive services work for you?
Why or why not?
• For people that need long-term subsidized housing
with intensive services, including case management.
Discussion Item or Question Notes
3. Dedicated Affordable Housing
Would this kind of permanent and affordable housing,
without supportive services, work for you?
Why or why not?
• For homeless people that have low incomes but
don’t need a lot of services.
• For individuals and families that are currently
homeless, and they are required to pay a portion of
their income in rent- typically somewhere between
30% and 50% of the household’s monthly income.
• Examples of Dedicated Affordable Housing are
Section 8.
Maintaining Housing & No Return to Homelessness
If you have become homeless, gotten housing, and then
lost housing again, what could have kept you from
becoming homeless again?
How do we improve our response so you can stay
housed?
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Discussion Item or Question Notes
Closing
Is there anything else you want us to know
that hasn’t been said today?
Do you have any questions?
Prepared by the Community Assessment, Planning and
Evaluation (CAPE) Unit January 2020
Appendix B: Method of Estimating Annual Homeless Population and Geographic Distribution
Calculating the number of units and beds needed in an ideal system begins with the annual number of households
experiencing homelessness. The Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County model will also need annual counts of different
subpopulations and geographies. Unfortunately, our HMIS is not currently prepared to establish annual counts and
geographic distribution because some project types and parts of the county are less covered than others. Instead, we
recommend using the Point in Time Count data to estimate the number of people experiencing homelessness in a year,
their geographic distribution throughout the county, and the average household size. This is the strongest approach in
the short term, and going forward, we should advocate for HMIS coverage and configuration that can more readily meet
these needs.
Estimating the unduplicated number of people experiencing homelessness in a year
There is no universally accepted method for estimating the unduplicated number of households or people experiencing
homelessness annually. It is impossible to know the actual number of people who experience homelessness in a year,
though estimating methods offer a likely range.
• Low End: 12,014 unduplicated people. This number derives from the monthly inflow rate into homelessness
(4.456%) from the Point in Time count survey.
• High End: 19,000 unduplicated people. This number draws from the Housing Inventory Chart and the HMIS to
understand utilization rates and the total beds available in the system.
• Middle Option: 15,786 unduplicated people. This number was reached using the weekly inflow rate from the 2019
PIT; this is the method used in the EveryOne Home 2018 Strategic Plan Update.
o The weekly inflow rate from the 2019 PIT survey (1.89%) multiplied by the total Point in Time count (8,022)
suggests 151.82 people become homeless each week. Multiplied by the remaining weeks in a year (51.14)
produces 7,764 as the number of additional people experiencing homelessness each year. Adding in the
original Point in Time count produces 15,786 as the number of unique people experiencing homelessness
each year.
We recommend using 15,786 as the number of people experiencing homelessness in a year for system modeling.
Geographic distribution of people experiencing homelessness
• HMIS is not configured to provide regional or jurisdictional data. Because some areas of the county have better
HMIS coverage than others, we cannot use HMIS to estimate the regional distribution of people experiencing
homelessness.
• By Name List data relies on the assessment, which has not been implemented consistently throughout the county to
ensure representative geographic distribution.
• The survey component of the Point in Time Count has small samples in some parts of the county, which could offer a
partial and misleading understanding of the regional distribution of homelessness.
• The census portion of the 2019 Point in Time Count addressed each census tract and shelter in the county
systematically, although some have concerns that the biennial PIT is an undercount.
Although the PIT data has some limitations, particularly related to counting households with minor children, it is the
strongest data source currently available for understanding the geographic distribution of homelessness in Alameda
County. For this reason, we recommend using the Point in Time count to estimate the proportion of people experiencing
homelessness in North County, Oakland, Mid-County, East County, and South County.
Figure 33: Point in Time Count Geographical Distribution
Household Size
Average household size for families and households with adults only can be derived from various sources. Because we
are using Point in Time Count data for the first two measures, we wanted to use PIT data on the average household size.
While the number of members in households with minor children was close across data sources, the number of
members in adult-only households of 1.001 was rather low. For this reason, we recommend using 1.05 as the number of
members in adult-only households from the HMIS as seen in Stella. Stella provides dynamic visuals of CoCs’ Longitudinal
Systems Analysis (LSA) data to illustrate how households move through the homeless system, and to highlight outcome
disparities.
Persons per household
Adult Only Household 1.05
Households with Minor Children 3.082
Households with Only Children 1.000
Figure 34: Persons per household (size)
These household sizes and the geographic estimates of people experiencing homelessness each year will generate a
more precise multiplier for converting the total number of people into the total number of households. And, while these
figures provide reasonable estimates to use for planning purposes, the available data may not fully represent the
number of adult-only households that include two (or more) adults, or households with only children that include two
(or more) children who wish to stay together as a household as they are experiencing homelessness and/or moving into
stable housing.
Household Configuration
We are confident that the PIT methodology—specifically the way it estimated households in vehicles—leads to an
undercount of the total number of households with minor children. For this reason, we recommend using the ratio of
adult-only households to a household with minor children from the HMIS, adjusted to account for unique households
who are only served by domestic violence shelters or non-HMIS service providers: 91.4% of households are adult-only,
7.5% of households have minor children, and 1.1% in households with only children.
Household Composition
% of
Households
Adult-Only Households 91.4% Adult-Only Households (DV/non-HMIS)
Households with Minor Children 7.5% Households with Minor Children (DV/Non-HMIS)
Households with Only Children 1.1%
Household Composition 100%
Figure 35: Household Configuration Percentages
91.4% of households are adult-only households with 1.001 members on average, 7.5% of households have minor
children and an average of 3.082 members, and 1.1% of households have only children with one member per household.
Point In Time Count Geographical Distribution % of PIT Population Estimate (persons)
East County (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin)4.3%679
Mid County (Hayward, San Leandro, Alameda)18.5%2,920
North County (Berkeley, Albany, and Emeryville)16.5%2,605
Oakland 50.7%8,004
South County (Fremont, Union City, Newark)10.0%1,579
Total 100%15,786
Together, the number of household members should total 15,786 people. Using these ratios and the average household
size, we can convert the estimated total number of persons experiencing homelessness into the estimated total number
of households experiencing homelessness using the following formula:
15,786 = .914(1.05x) + .075(3.082x) + .011(1x)
Household configurations are regionally divided as follows:
Figure 36: Regionally-Divided Household Configurations
Notes Toward Greater Specificity in Data Collection and Reporting
Estimating the annual number of households experiencing homelessness highlights several areas where the system
could develop its data collection to better support this analysis.
• Enhance HMIS capacity to report at the regional and jurisdictional levels
• Improve the HMIS coverage rate, consider ways to make HMIS participation less burdensome for providers, such
as through the attendance module
• Tighten up data collection on household size and relationships on the coordinated entry assessment and/or
housing assessment. This will enable the system to better understand the housing needs (one or two bedroom)
of adult-only households.
• Explore how the Point in Time Count can achieve a more accurate count of households with minor children,
particularly those in vehicles.
• Add a question to the Point in Time Count to better understand how many households experience more than
one period of homelessness in a year.
• Program Models Matrix
• Resource list of similar program models in other communities
• List of Work Group (Adult-Only HH, HH with Minor Children and Equity) and Leadership Committee members
• Equity Analysis materials
Appendix C. Program Models for Households with Only Adults
Program Models for Single Adults
Program Model Description Program Types
Prevention and
Early Intervention
Services are those provided to people before they reach the front
door of the homeless services system. This may include services
to both those already experiencing homeless and to those at-risk
of homelessness seeking assistance.
o Crisis Hotline
o Prevention
o Rapid Resolution
o Multi-Service Center
Crisis Response Crisis response programs are intended to be time-limited and
designed to be a stepping-stone to stability. They will typically
last one to three months and provide access to basic needs and
referrals to services that lead to long-lasting housing stability.
These services should be flexible, client-centered, trauma-
informed, and strengths-based. They will be “low barrier” in that
they will not terminate people from programming due to
unhealthy or disruptive behaviors.
o Emergency Shelter
• Community Cabins
• Medical Respite
• Safe Parking
• Transitional Housing
o Transitional Housing for Youth
o Street Outreach
Long-Term
Housing
Safe and stable housing that provides supportive services and
housing assistance to support people as they return to
permanent housing or permanent housing supported by a
mainstream system resource.
o Rapid Re-Housing
o Permanent Supportive Housing
o Dedicated Affordable Housing
o PSH Seniors
o Shallow Subsidy
o RV Parking
I. PREVENTION AND EARLY
INTERVENTION SERVICES
Prevention and early intervention services are those provided to people before they enter the homeless services system. This
may include services to both those already experiencing homeless as well as to those at imminent risk.
Program Type and
Description
Essential Elements
Crisis Hotline
A phone-based system that
helps to connect
households in a housing
crisis to appropriate
resources based on needs
and wants
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Well-trained staff respond to a crisis with accurate, real-time information that can be individualized to the person’s situation
and the availability of resources.
o Staff understand local programs, their target populations, and can make appropriate assignments that link households to
appropriate housing resources.
o Staff have training on domestic violence (DV), the DV system, and how to respond and appropriately connect people fleeing
DV to appropriate resources.
o Real-time assignment to shelter beds.
o Linkage to regional street outreach teams and multi-service drop-in centers if no beds available
o Connection to services and resources: Medi-Cal, employment, health care, food, benefits, mental health, behavioral health
services, etc.
Population:
All households in a housing crisis.
o All staff working in the crisis response system are trained in structural racism and barriers to maintaining housing in Alameda County.
o Staff is trained to understand people’s circumstances in relation to their social conditions, including structural racism.
Overarching Program Elements: these elements serve as a foundation for all the program models presented in this document.
o All program information (website, outreach materials, etc.) is translated into County threshold languages.
o All program information is disseminated at strategic community touchpoints where those least likely to be connected to services frequent – (e.g., church,
corner store, neighborhood, school, and place of employment).
o The hiring process for program staff at all levels ensures broad racial and ethnic diversity, including representation of all County threshold languages.
o Programs include a portion of staff with “lived experience.”
o Staff is trained in trauma-informed care.
o Client choice is honored and respected in all programs and centers. Housing assistance is client-driven and helps locate housing opportunities that fit the
client’s needs (near job opportunities and family/social networks).
Prevention
Prevent loss of housing and
entry into homelessness
through limited financial
assistance and services
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Those receiving prevention assistance have been engaged in a problem-solving conversation to determine how best to
resolve the housing crisis.
• Must be designed and implemented in fidelity to models with proven effectiveness at reducing inflow—
more details on effective models available here.
o Culturally competent prevention providers have strategies to reach people of color who are at disproportionate risk of
homelessness.
o When appropriate for agreed upon activities, financial assistance is available up to the maximum amount established by the
community.
Services provided:
o Eviction mediation and legal services
o Housing navigation: on-going for up to three months.
o Connection to mainstream services and resources: Medi-Cal, employment, health care, food, benefits, mental and
behavioral health services
o Domestic violence support
Population:
Those who meet HUD’s definition of imminent risk of homelessness.
Rapid Resolution
Problem-solving with those
who report they have no
place to go to avoid entry
into the homeless system
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Problem-solving conversation to explore safe alternatives to homelessness; assess for safety and stability.
o Services to support people in the safe alternative that was identified for up to six months.
Services provided:
o Housing problem-solving. For more details, refer to the Housing Problem Solving Policy Guide
o Financial assistance – flex funds
o Connection to services and resources: employment, health care, food, transportation, other benefits, mental health,
behavioral health services, etc.
o Emergency hotel vouchers for people who are in the diversion process.
o CE assessment within 24 hours if a safe alternative is not identified or is temporary.
Population:
o People who will be homeless tonight
Multi-Service Center
Access to prevention and
diversion services.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Housing problem solvers to respond to walk-ins, including providing prevention and diversion.
o Connects the household to services they are eligible for (ex. SNAP, Medi-Cal, disability including SOAR)
o Conducts coordinated entry assessment and check if the person has been referred to housing.
o Health and social services on-site or direct access points for these mainstream system resources
Connection to services for
people who are literally
homeless
o Financial assistance – flex funds
o Employment services including a computer lab.
o Provide for basic needs: food, shower, laundry, hygiene kits, clothes.
o Activities, classes, support groups for different issues and populations
o Safe space – security, trauma-informed, no judgment. Less stigmatizing than accessing services at the shelter, especially for
prevention and diversion.
o Geographically distributed, transportation accessible
o Opportunity for community to be involved – donations, volunteering. Create relationships, organize people.
Population:
o People in a housing crisis
o People who are literally homeless in a shelter or unsheltered locations
o People who are doubled up and need a safe place
II. Crisis Response Crisis response programs are intended to be time-limited and designed to be a stepping-stone to stability. They will typically last one to
three months and provide access to basic needs and referrals to services that lead to long-lasting housing stability. These services
should be flexible, client-centered, trauma-informed, and strengths-based. They will be “low barrier” in that they will not terminate
people from programming due to unhealthy or disruptive behaviors.
Program Type and
Description
Essential Elements
Emergency Shelter
Emergency shelter
with navigation
type services (low-
barrier, service-rich,
housing-focused)
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o The number of people and type of shelter might vary by facility, but all shelters would have some degree of privacy, no
overcrowding, no bunk beds, open 24/7.
o Low barrier (pets, possessions, partners, parking, privacy), holistic, not institutionalized. Includes locks and storage (possessions).
o Located in communities populated by unsheltered individuals who are seeking local housing solutions.
o Housing-focused services provided:
o Assessment for eligibility and referral
Housing navigation
o Staffing model/caseload size: 2:20-25 to keep shelter low barrier.
o Other support services provided: On-site providers for income (employment/training/education), legal, transportation, life skills,
and substance use.
o Strongly coordinated with all access points (including outreach and in-reach) but also able to take walk-ins: same-day access
o Connections to mainstream services: Screening or assessment for physical health and behavioral health (mental health and/or
substance use) with limited treatment services offered on-site, Social Security eligibility and other mainstream providers able to
reach and complete benefit acquisition on-site, direct referrals to treatment or care for needs related to health, mental health
and/or substance use.
o Key partners: Local City and County, CE, Permanent Housing Providers, BH/MH providers, Mainstream resource providers
o Other essential elements: Co-located with or near multi-services center with walk-in resources and referrals, clear and transparent
placement process communicated to the community and non-housing providers to include limitations and expectations.
Population:
Homeless Single Adults, Couples, Adults without Dependents, Young Adults that don’t want transitional housing.
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Community Cabins
Assessment of
Housing Crisis
Needs and Access
Community Cabin programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs. This
program type was retained under system modeling to respond to jurisdictional needs.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Safe, clean, and appropriate climate control with privacy, locks, and storage co-located in communities populated by unsheltered
individuals, 24/7.
o Housing-focused services provided: Assessment for eligibility and referral, direct connection to permanent housing, physical and
behavioral health assessment, identification of barriers to placement in interim and/or permanent housing.
o Housing navigation
to short-term
housing for
stabilization and
exit to emergency
shelter or
permanent housing.
Focused on place-
based closures of
problematic
encampments
o Other support services provided: Healthcare, sanitation, meals, transportation, substance use counseling.
o Connections to mainstream services: MH/BH assessment, SS eligibility, and other mainstream providers able to reach and connect
with participants.
o Staffing model/caseload size: Based on population, average 1:15/20.
o Key partners: Local City and County, CE, Permanent Housing Providers, BH/MH providers, Mainstream resource providers
o Other essential elements: evaluation of local numbers and needs of unsheltered/encampment populations with the inclusion of
lived expertise on specific program design, safety, direct referrals for people with urgent and high needs, communication with the
community and non-housing providers (first responders, human services, etc.), warm hand-offs and follow-on care with established
service provider connections (case managers, street outreach, etc.), evaluation of utilization and post-referral success, and
continued outreach to local unsheltered/encampment populations who decline housing.
o No more than 90 days, tied to household type, vulnerability, etc.
Population:
Single Adults, Couples, Adults without Dependents
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Medical respite
Emergency shelter
with intensive
services for
medically
vulnerable
homeless persons
who are being
discharged or
diverted from a
hospital
Medical Respite programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs except as
outlined below.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Immediate/timely placement option for persons who do not have a medical necessity for hospital or skilled nursing facility but
recuperative case services beyond what is provided in a shelter. This can include persons:
• who are unsheltered or sheltered and are identified as needing medical respite.
• being discharged or diverted from an inpatient hospital setting.
• referred from emergency departments.
o A clean and healthy residential environment that promotes stabilization and recovery, prevents readmission to emergency and
acute care settings, and provides a bridge to more permanent housing settings.
o Up to a90-day length of stay.
o 24/7 staffing.
o On-site nursing staff plus medical staff site visits.
o Direct linkages with health care provider clinics.
o Linkage with standard emergency shelter resources for exits.
o Three meals/day.
o Other shelter services as outlined above – housing navigation.
o In-Home Supportive Services or Home Health arrangements allowed and coordinated.
o Persons generally stay in recuperative care for 1-6 months with an average length of stay of 90 days (Whole Person Care funding
cannot be used for lengths of stays greater than 90 days).
Population:
Individuals with medical or daily living needs that cannot be met in crisis housing, inclusive of young adults and people who are
pregnant.
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Safe Parking
Safe and legal place
to stay in car with
connection to
navigation services
and basic needs
Safe Parking programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Some safe parking sites co-located with crisis housing or service centers, but others around the county could have mobile services
come out to them.
o Sanitation/bathrooms; overnight security
o Key partners: churches, cities
o Connection to resources for car repair when vehicles are not running.
Population:
People who are homeless, have a car, and would rather stay in the car than enter a shelter, inclusive of young adults.
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Transitional
Housing
Transitional Housing programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs. This
program type was retained under system modeling for funding eligibility purposes.
Transitional
Housing for Young
Adults
Transitional housing for young adults aged 18-24
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Time-limited but with longer stays than adult transitional housing (up to 18 months).
o The central focus is developing life skills.
o Service-intensive: counseling, education, and vocational services are provided.
Street Outreach
Linkage to services
and education
about available
resources for
people who are
unsheltered.
Stabilize people and
refer to shelters or
respite programs.
Build rapport and
trust.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Engagement services to help people move into a shelter, connect to health care and other services, be engaged in a problem-
solving and coordinated entry. Focused on developing relationships.
o Connection with jail, psychiatric treatment, foster care, and hospitals to avoid discharging into homelessness.
o Coordinate with hygiene and sanitation services provided to encampments and people who are unsheltered. Outreach workers
should be aware of Public Works plans for encampment clean-up and clearance but not responsible for posting notices.
o Plan for places outreach workers can meet people – health clinics, churches, meal sites, other places where people will feel
welcome – where coffee and snacks could be available.
o Mobile delivery of multi-service center services.
o Support services: Harm reduction, identify health and mental health crises, SOAR trained or a strong connection to SOAR services,
mobilize local community resources to help people experiencing homelessness in their neighborhood.
o Conduct CE assessment.
o Meet immediate needs: food, clothes, hygiene, shelter.
III. Long-Term
Housing
Safe and stable housing provides supportive services and housing assistance to support people as they return to permanent housing or
permanent housing supported by a mainstream system resource.
Overarching
Elements of Long-
Term Housing
Models
o A single point of application for housing
o Background checks have no restrictions beyond those required by HUD.
o Access to legal resources to address housing discrimination.
o A community-wide, shared landlord listing established to reduce the challenge of locating units.
o An emphasis on client choice in all aspects of housing placement.
o Warm handoffs are provided when entering housing or transitioning from one housing program to another.
o Whenever needed, there are connections to financial management services and training, including credit repair/credit building
support; training and support with budgeting and developing long-term savings; asset-building opportunities.
o Vocational services and employment assistance are available to assist with finding or upgrading employment.
o If the program staff does not provide requested services, there are connections to mainstream service providers, trained in
culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches to service provision.
Program Type and
Description
Essential Elements
Rapid Re-housing
Time-limited rental
subsidy and support
services with the
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
Type of unit: any rental housing unit must meet HQS, have an appropriate rental agreement, documented relationship between a
property owner and management entity.
o Housing-focused services provided: landlord liaison/housing search function, finding units, landlord risk-mitigation pools, housing-
o Provide transportation through bus passes and cars for outreach workers.
o Provide a tablet to allow real-time HMIS input.
o Caseload ratio: 1:20 usual for Oakland; 2:60 for City of Alameda. Outreach in teams to help with relationship continuity and service
coordination.
o Available extended hours and weekends as financially feasible.
Staffing needs to address high turnover in these positions:
o Increase pay and PTO.
o Promote self-care.
o Support to process for secondary trauma.
o Professional development opportunities with career paths and succession planning.
Population:
People who are unsheltered.
intention of the
household taking
over lease and
sustaining on own
focused case management, rent assistance, flex funds, inspections.
o Housing navigation staffing ratio of one FTE for every 20-25 households
o Landlord liaison/housing search staffing ratio of one FTE for every 30-40 households
Access to public benefits assistance as needed.
o Other essential elements: Progressive engagement process to transition people to PSH or Dedicated Affordable Housing if needed.
o Target income to rent ratio at the end of the program – no more than 50% of income for rent with at least $500/month available
for non-housing & utility needs.
Timeframe:
o Standard RRH – 6-12 months
o Longer-term for households who are waiting on SSDI process or have a longer-term income growth trajectory.
Population:
Most useful for literally homeless households who are likely to increase household income (earned or unearned) within a defined time
frame who score lower on the CE assessment
Permanent
Supportive Housing
Permanent
subsidies based on
income and services
to keep tenants
stable in housing
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Type of unit: deeply subsidized – people pay 30% of income for rent; reduce reliance on tenant-based subsidies in private buildings
and income project-based units; could include master lease.
Housing-focused services provided:
o Housing navigation and landlord liaison support (for scattered-site PSH with tenant-based rent subsidies).
o Tenancy-sustaining support services for clients with disabilities who face challenges to getting and keeping housing,
including coaching for independent living and community integration.
o Other support services are provided directly or through connections to mainstream service providers as appropriate to individual
needs. This may include: representative payee/ money management services, intensive services to support harm reduction and
engagement in care for health or behavioral health conditions with a focus on behaviors and symptoms that could impact.
successful tenancy/housing retention, IHHS, adult day, medical care and home health services, other public services, holistic,
community partnerships
o Staffing 1:25
o Key partners: public housing authorities, non-profit housing developers, property managers; County HCSA/ behavioral health,
Medi-Cal managed care plans
o Other essential elements: move-on option, fair housing/advocacy.
o Scattered-site programs must include a housing search/landlord liaison component (see HCSA services description)
Population:
Those experiencing chronic homelessness and/or extremely high need individuals who will need long-term services and subsidies to
maintain housing.
Dedicated
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing
resources dedicated
to households
experiencing or at
risk of homelessness
and/or seniors or
people with
disabilities: Includes
subsidized income-
based units, non-
time-limited shallow
subsidy, tax credit
units designated for
extremely low-
income (ELI)
households, in lieu
of units
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
Type of unit: SRO, studio, one-bedroom, could be scattered-site, or site-based; could include shared housing; could be tenant-based or
project-based.
o Rent subsidy or subsidized/affordable unit, the subsidy could taper over time if income increases.
o Housing-focused services provided:
o Landlord liaison
o Service coordinator caseload 1:50-60
o Other services: trauma-informed property management, barrier-busting, housing eligibility & housing search, landlord incentives,
representative payee services.
o Housing navigation services may be essential for the effective use of tenant-based rental assistance.
o Other support services provided directly (often by on-site service coordinators) or through connections to mainstream service
providers.
o Connections to workforce training and other employment support.
o Key partners: public housing authorities and non-profit housing organizations, city, state, funders.
Population:
Extremely low-income households without complex needs who are unlikely to increase their income.
PSH –Seniors
Provide a higher
level of care for
people who cannot
meet their own
needs because of
physical or cognitive
impairments
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Housing-focused services provided:
o PSH tenancy sustaining services.
o Landlord liaison
o Other support services are provided directly or through connections to mainstream service providers: representative payee, ADL
supports, memory care, opportunities for socialization.
o Connected to: IHHS, Day Health. Medi-Cal, Medi-Medi
o Staffing 1:25
o Key partners: Community care licensing; Social Services Agency, Center for Elders Independence, Age-Friendly Council Other
essential elements: Licensed community care facilities or specially designed permanent supportive housing sites with necessary
wrap-around services
Population:
People who need a higher level of care because they cannot perform activities of daily living or they have permanent cognitive deficits
with no pathway for recovery
Shallow Subsidy
Mitigate
unaffordability in
the housing market
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Tenant based assistance could include shared housing or households willing to support the family through rapid resolution.
o Subsidies could be shallow or deep depending on the need.
o Housing must meet habitability or HQS standards.
o Households can be progressively engaged to be served in PSH or dedicated affordable housing.
o Housing assistance: Security deposit, rent and utility assistance, moving costs, start-up furniture, and household item.
o Program staff complete re-certifications and can connect households to services if a need is identified.
Population:
Households unlikely to increase income because of health or disability issues or educational or employment barriers, households
paying more than 50% of income for rent, households that have been homeless before
RV Parking
Permanent, safe,
affordable, legal, RV
parking with utilities
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o RV can be owned by a resident of a nearby locality.
o Meets HUD habitability standards.
o Has utility service.
o A lease agreement that gives full rights of tenancy
o Housing services include housing-focused case management, rent assistance, flex funds, inspections.
Population:
Households with an RV or who express interest in living in this type of set up. Households unlikely to increase income, which may make
this a more affordable housing choice.
Appendix D: Program Models for Households with Minor Children
Program Models for Families with Children
Program Model Description Program Types
Prevention and
Early Intervention
Services are those provided to people before they reach the front door
of the homeless services system. This may include services to both
those already experiencing homeless and to those at-risk of
homelessness seeking assistance.
o Crisis Hotline
o Prevention
o Rapid Resolution
o Emergency Resource Centers
Crisis Response Crisis response programs are intended to be time-limited in nature and
are designed to be a stepping-stone to stability. They will typically last
one to three months and provide access to basic needs and referrals to
services that lead to long-lasting housing stability. These services
should be flexible, client-centered, trauma-informed, and strengths-
based. They will be “low barrier” in that they will not terminate people
from programming due to unhealthy or disruptive behaviors, rather
they will work to minimize the disruption of these behaviors.
o Emergency Shelter
• Motel Vouchers
• Safe Parking
• Transitional Housing
o Street Outreach
Long-Term Housing Safe and stable housing provides supportive services and housing
assistance to support people as they return to permanent housing or
permanent housing supported by a mainstream system resource.
o Rapid Re-housing
o Permanent Supportive Housing
o Dedicated Affordable Housing
o Shallow Subsidy
Overarching Program Elements: these elements serve as a foundation for all the program models presented in this document
o All staff working in the crisis response system are trained in structural racism and barriers to maintaining housing in Alameda County.
o Staff is trained to understand people’s circumstances in relation to their social conditions, including structural racism.
o All program information (website, outreach materials, etc.) is translated into County threshold languages.
o All program information is disseminated at strategic community touchpoints where those least likely to be connected to services frequent – (e.g., church,
corner store, neighborhood, school, and place of employment.
o The hiring process for program staff at all levels ensures broad racial and ethnic diversity, including representation of all County threshold languages.
o Programs include a portion of staff with “lived experience.”
o Staff are trained in trauma-informed care.
o Client choice is honored and respected in all programs and centers. Housing assistance is client-driven and helps locate clients that fit their needs (near
job opportunities and family/social networks, etc.)
PREVENTION AND
EARLY INTERVENTION
SERVICES
Prevention and early intervention services are those provided to people before they enter the homeless services system.
This may include services to both those already experiencing homeless as well as to those at imminent risk.
Program Type and
Description
Essential Elements
Crisis Hotline
A phone-based system
that helps to connect
those in housing a crisis
with resources based on
needs and wants.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Well-trained staff responds to a crisis with accurate, real-time information that can be individualized to their situation and
available resources.
o The staff understands local programs, their target populations, and can make appropriate assignments that link households to
appropriate housing resources.
o The staff are trained on domestic violence (DV), the DV system, and how to respond and appropriately connect people fleeing DV
to appropriate resources.
o Real-time assignment to shelter beds.
o Linkage to regional street outreach teams and multi-service drop-in centers if no beds are available.
o Connection to services and resources: Medi-Cal, employment, health care, food, benefits, mental health, behavioral health
services, etc.
Population:
All households in a housing crisis.
Prevention
Program to prevent the
loss of housing for those
at imminent risk of
homelessness
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Those receiving prevention assistance have been engaged in a problem-solving conversation to determine how best to resolve
the housing crisis.
• Programs are designed and implemented in fidelity to models with proven effectiveness at reducing inflow—
more details on effective models available here.
o Culturally competent prevention providers have strategies to reach people of color who are at disproportionate risk of
homelessness.
o Financial assistance is provided when appropriate for agreed-upon activities up to a maximum assistance amount established by
the community.
Services provided:
o Eviction mediation and legal services.
o Housing navigation: on-going for up to three months.
o Connection to wrap-around services – food, childcare, health care, employment supports, benefits, insurance, legal services,
mental and behavioral health services.
o Marketing of program to reach households in a housing crisis:
o McKinney-Vento liaisons
o Pediatricians
o Prenatal care
o Home visiting service
o Existing model: Family Front Door
Population: Those who meet HUD’s definition of imminent risk of homelessness.
Rapid Resolution
Problem-solving with
those who report they
have no place to go to
avoid entry into the
homeless system
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Problem-solving conversation to explore safe alternatives to homelessness; assess for safety and stability.
o Services identified as a safe alternative to provide support for up to six months.
Services provided:
o Housing problem-solving. For more details, refer to the Housing Problem Solving Policy Guide
o Financial assistance – flex funds
o Connection to services and resources: employment, health care, food, transportation, other benefits, mental health, behavioral
health services, etc.
o Emergency hotel vouchers for people who are in the diversion process.
o CE assessment within 24 hours if a safe alternative is not identified or is temporary.
o Housing assistance if the household cannot stabilize in current situation.
o Financial assistance is provided when appropriate, for agreed upon activities up to a maximum assistance amount of
• Provide linkages to providers that have capacity to respond to referrals – very warm hand-offs.
• Health care access points (clinics, pediatricians, Help Me Grow)
• Childcare providers focused on homeless children.
• Family health services in public health department
• Food, transportation, mental health, and behavioral health services, etc.
Population:
Families who report that they have nowhere to sleep tonight
Emergency Resource
Centers
A place to assess family
needs and barriers to
permanent housing,
provide access to
housing and mainstream
resources, and provide
coordination of
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Housing-focused services provided co-located with a shelter that includes diversion, housing problem solving, landlord/housing
navigation, addresses barriers (debt, legal, etc.) to promote reunification.
o Service location is welcoming to those in a housing crisis, and the size is adequate to support the service model.
o Other support services provided: education, employment, and training, flexible childcare including during appointments and
employment search (on-site or vouchers), healthcare, document collection, food access, other requirements to meet CPS plans
and prevent removal.
o Staffing model/caseload size: 1:20 max, lower depending on household composition, needs, case manager competencies (MSW,
LCSW…), etc.
community family
services.
Dedicated to homeless
and housing unstable
families and pregnant
women
o Connections to mainstream services: data sharing and coordination between family service providers, on-site staff, and clear
communication and ease of access from and to referring sources (schools, CPS, community networks, etc.)
o Provide for basic needs: food, shower, laundry, hygiene kits, clothes.
o Key partners: WIC, Food banks, PHAs, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, Education, Faith-based providers and communities,
minority community networks
o Other essential elements: Computer labs, homework help, flexibility to meet household needs, physical and process design is
adaptive to families, the inclusion of participants and families with lived experience in developing process and evaluation.
Population:
Homeless and housing unstable families and pregnant women, inclusive of different types of family structures as defined by the
family, accommodates parents and children who work at night
II. CRISIS RESPONSE Crisis response programs are intended to be time-limited and designed to be a stepping-stone to stability. They will typically last 1-3
months and provide access to basic needs and referrals to services that lead to long-lasting housing stability. These services should
be flexible, client-centered, trauma-informed, and strengths-based. They will be “low barrier” in that they will not terminate people
from programming due to unhealthy or disruptive behaviors, rather will work on other strategies to ensure others in the program
are not adversely impacted.
Program Type and
Description
Essential Elements
Emergency Shelter
Service-rich, housing-
focused, low-barrier
shelter.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
o Facility-based: 24/7, economies of scale to have many families in one location so services can be efficiently provided. Space is
set up so families are not separated no matter their family configuration (e.g., two-parent, multi-generational, LGBTQ+), and to
not feel over-crowded or chaotic (separate wings, floors, or neighborhoods), with onsite space for support service providers
o Provide privacy, safety, rules that support engagement with school and employment, services that support teens so they remain
with their family. Low barrier and holistic, not institutionalized.
o Space arranged to flexibly accommodate all configurations of families with children and changing family composition (e.g.,
including the boyfriend, the grandma, etc.), and a degree of privacy.
o Space for pets & pet-free areas for people with allergies
o Storage space for people’s possessions
o Parking available for resident vehicles
o Services provided:
o Housing navigation
o Housing-focused services:
• CE assessment
• Financial assistance for move-in
• Help with applications and getting on affordable housing lists.
• Problem-solving
• Link to RRH with navigation
o Caseload 1:10 families/1:30 people with clinical support
o Property management: 1 per facility
o Meets Alameda County Emergency Shelter Standards for Year-Round Shelters
o Open during the day
o Same-day access
o Basic needs & family support services:
• Meals.
• Parenting support services.
• Activities for children.
• Childcare for appointments, etc.
• Teen supports.
• Health care – children’s hospital Kerry’s kids; school-based health and mental health services.
o Income supports services: CalWORKs, SOAR.
o Legal Services: DMV, Immigration, employment & housing discrimination.
o Strong linkages to voluntary mainstream services, which should be co-located or brought on site frequently:
• Medical screening/triage
• Behavioral health
• Shelter health
• Intense wrap-around services for high-needs families
• Visiting health nurses
• Head Start
• McKinney-Vento liaison
• CPS
Population: Families experiencing homelessness (inclusive of different types of family structures as defined by the family), pregnant
women, accommodates parents and children who work at night
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Motel vouchers
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Motel Voucher programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs.
o Motel vouchers used in limited circumstances for overflow or special situations such as fleeing domestic violence or in cases of
contagious illness.
o Same housing navigation and other supports as an emergency shelter.
III. Long-Term Housing Safe and stable housing that provides supportive services and housing assistance to support people as they return to independent
permanent housing or permanent housing supported by a mainstream system resource.
Overarching Elements of
Long-Term Housing
Models
o A single point of application for housing.
o Background checks have no restrictions beyond those required by HUD.
o Access to legal resources to address housing discrimination.
o A community-wide shared landlord listing established to reduce the challenge of locating units.
o An emphasis on client choice in all aspects of housing placement.
o Warm handoffs are provided when entering housing or transitioning from one housing program to another.
o Whenever needed, there are connections to financial management services and training, including credit repair/credit building
support; training and support with budgeting and developing long-term savings; asset-building opportunities.
o Vocational services and employment assistance are available to assist with finding or upgrading employment.
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Safe Parking
A safe and legal place
to stay in a car with
connection to
navigation services
and basic needs
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Safe Parking programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs.
o Some safe parking sites co-located with crisis housing or service centers, but others around the county could have mobile
services come out to them.
o Sanitation/bathrooms; overnight security.
o Key partners: churches, cities.
o Access to car repair assistance if needed to utilize safe parking.
Population:
People who are homeless, have a car, and would rather stay in their car than enter a shelter.
Emergency Shelter
Subcategory:
Transitional Housing
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Transitional Housing programs are expected to mirror the purpose, structure, and operations of Emergency Shelter programs. This
program type was retained under system modeling for funding eligibility purposes.
o Targeted to special populations, e.g., active CPS cases.
Street Outreach
NOTE: No separate
street outreach
program
recommended for
families
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Street outreach teams should include someone knowledgeable about resources for families; the focus should be connecting families
to shelters. If the family remains unsheltered, outreach should maintain contact until they are housed.
o Street outreach workers should be trained in:
• problem-solving to try to identify a safe alternative to homelessness.
• CPS requirements for homeless families.
• Immigration requirements for people accessing homeless services.
If the program staff does not provide requested services, there are connections to mainstream service providers trained in
culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches to service provision.
Program Type
And Description
Essential Elements
Rapid Re-housing
Assist households who
can increase income to
find and move-in to
housing with temporary
financial assistance
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
Type of unit: any rental housing unit must meet HQS, have an appropriate rental agreement, documented relationship between
the property owner and management entity.
o Housing-focused services provided: landlord liaison/housing search function, finding units, landlord risk-mitigation pools,
housing-focused case management, rent assistance, flex funds, inspections. Connection to mainstream services–CalFresh,
childcare, employment, benefits advocacy.
o Housing assistance: Security deposit, rent and utility assistance, moving costs, start-up furniture, and household items.
o Ability to progressively engage to Shallow Subsidy or Dedicated Affordable Housing if, after some time of RRH assistance, it
is determined that the household will be unable to increase income to stabilize in housing without assistance. Also can
progressively engage to PSH if a household has intensive service needs not identified when moving into RRH.
o Housing navigation staffing ratio of one FTE for every 20-25 households.
o Landlord liaison/housing search staffing ratio of one FTE for every 30-40 households.
o Employment specialist using IPS evidenced-based model is one FTE for every 20-25 households (separate from care manager
role).
Population:
Most useful for literally homeless households who are likely to increase household income (earned or unearned) within a defined
time frame who score lower on the CE assessment.
Permanent Supportive
Housing
To provide families long-
term, deeply supported,
and affordable housing.
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Type of unit: flexible when family size changes.
o Site-based or scattered-site.
o Housing-focused services provided:
o PSH tenancy sustaining services.
o Landlord liaison.
o Staffing 1:20 for site-based, 1:15 for scattered-site case management.
o Rental subsidy household should only pay 30% of income for rent and have a lease, risk mitigation funds, financial assistance
to move-on.
o Community living supports, tenant rights, landlord engagement (for a scattered site).
o Other support services provided directly or through connections to mainstream service providers: wrap-around services, food,
childcare, budget, meaningful daily activities, IHOT for families, dedicated family approach, MH, employment, school,
education, mobile crisis 24/7 as needed, linkage to clinical support.
o Key partners: mainstream: HDCSS, BMCS, probation, child welfare, schools.
o Other essential elements: strong move-on policy; some level of family support if qualifying member leaves/dies.
Population:
Those experiencing chronic homelessness and/or extremely high need individuals who will need long-term services and subsidy to
maintain housing.
Dedicated Affordable
Housing
Extremely low-income
households
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Housing can be project-based or tenant-based.
o Services: service coordination to connect to mainstream services, benefits advocacy, CalFresh, educational supports
o Caseload ratio: 1:50 Flexible services, engagement is not required to remain in housing.
o Housing assistance: Security deposit, rent and utility assistance, moving costs, start-up furniture, and household items.
o Possible funding source: Homeless preference at housing authorities.
Population:
Extremely low-income households without complex needs who are unlikely to increase their income.
Shallow Subsidy
Mitigate unaffordability
in the housing market
Refer to the Overarching Program Elements for considerations relevant to all program models.
Refer to the Overarching Elements of Long-Term Housing Models for considerations for this model.
o Tenant-based assistance could include shared housing or households willing to support the family through rapid resolution.
o Subsidies could be shallow or deep depending on the need.
o Housing must meet habitability or HQS standards.
o Households can be progressively engaged to be served in PSH or dedicated affordable housing.
o Housing assistance: Security deposit, rent and utility assistance, moving costs, start-up furniture, and household items.
o Housing must meet habitability or HQS standards.
Light touch services for those with minimal needs, connection to higher-touch services for those with more significant needs
(including case management)
Population:
Households unlikely to increase income because of health or disability issues or educational or employment barriers.
Households paying more than 50% of income for rent.
Households that have been homeless before.
A shallow subsidy is targeted to households employed or likely to be employed.
Appendix E: CoC Sub-Geography Models, East County
East County includes Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and surrounding unincorporated areas. At 2019 Point in Time
Count, roughly four percent of the CoC homeless population were counted in East County. All the estimates and
recommendations below are based on East County containing four percent of the CoC’s homeless population. It also
assumes that household compositions and needs are relatively consistent across the CoC and that inflow and returns
rates are consistent across sub-geographic regions. Finally, at the writing of this report, the CoC does not have baseline
inventory data for each region. This makes it difficult to provide accurate estimates of the number of additional units
needed. In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more detailed
understanding of homeless households’ characteristics and needs in each community, the inflow rate and returns to
homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Scenario 1 East County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless system represented in the model will improve the
rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate of returns to homelessness by three percent each
year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into the homeless system maintains at 20%, close to the
inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment
of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and
$250,000 in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 1 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 37 Scenario 1, East County 5-Year for Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 East County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as Scenario 1, assuming that retention will quickly improve,
reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into
homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2 adds $50 million of new investment each year.
The combined countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up in Scenario 2 is $956 million.
Figure 38: Scenario 2, East County 5-Year for Households with Only Adults
The below side-by-side charts represent the different impacts of each investment scenario in the homeless population:
annual population (blue), exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining (green). These graphs show that
investment strategy impacts significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time,
both scenarios indicate that hundreds of adults will continue to experience homelessness each year in East County, even
after five years of aggressive investment. These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in
particular, Black and Native Americans. Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic
inequality, and housing shortfalls—homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda
County.
Figure 39: Scenarios 1 and 2 Compared, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 East County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 1 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistic, maintaining at 20% year after year, close to the inflow
rate of 22% that Alameda County saw between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled system will be more
equitable and effective than the current system, resulting in higher permanent housing retention rates. The rate of
returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant countywide investment of $13 million in year one, and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year
three, $2 million in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the
response for homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Figure 40: Scenario 1, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 East County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 adds $6 million of new investment each
year. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million (rounded).
Figure 41: Scenario 2, Households with Minor Children
Figures 41 and 42 show the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 in East County for comparison of the annual number of homeless
households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and the number
of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs show that the
investment scenario matters.
Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with minor children. Both scenarios
show that scores of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year in East County.
These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American households.
Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages, is
intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Figure 42: Scenario 1, East County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Figure 43: Scenario 2, East County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Appendix F: CoC Sub-Geography Models, Mid-County
Mid-County includes Alameda, Hayward, San Leandro, and the surrounding unincorporated areas including, Ashland,
Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, and San Lorenzo. At 2019 Point in Time Count, roughly 18.5% of the CoC homeless
population were counted in Mid-County. All the estimates and recommendations below are based on Mid-County
containing, 18.5% of the CoC’s homeless population of households with only adults and households with minor children.
It assumes that household compositions and characteristics are relatively consistent across the CoC and that inflow and
returns rates are consistent across sub-geographic regions. Finally, at the writing of this report, the CoC does not have
baseline inventory data for each region. This makes it difficult to provide accurate estimates of the number of additional
units needed. In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more detailed
understanding of homeless households’ characteristics and needs in each community, the inflow rate and returns to
homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Scenario 1 Mid-County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless system represented in the model will improve the
rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate of returns to homelessness by three percent each
year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into the homeless system maintains at 20%, close to the
inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment
of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and
$250,000 in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 1 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 44: Scenario 1, Mid-County CoC, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 Mid-County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as Scenario 1, assuming that retention will quickly improve,
reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into
homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2 adds $50 million of new investment each year.
The combined countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up in Scenario 2 is $956 million.
Figure 46: Comparison of Mid-County Scenarios 1 and 2
Figure 45, Scenario 2, Mid-County, Households with Only Adults
Figure 44 represents the different impacts of each investment scenario in the homeless population: annual population
(blue), exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining (green). These graphs show that investment strategy
impacts significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time, both scenarios
indicate that thousands of adults will continue to experience homelessness each year in Mid-County, even after five
years of aggressive investment. These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in particular,
Black and Native Americans. Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and
housing shortfalls—homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda County.
Scenario 1 Mid-County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 1 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistic, maintaining at 20% year after year, close to the inflow
rate of 22% that Alameda County saw between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled system will be more
equitable and effective than the current system, resulting in higher permanent housing retention rates. The rate of
returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant countywide investment of $13 million in year one and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year
three, $2 million in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the
response for homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Figure 47: Scenario 1, Mid-County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 Mid-County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 adds $6 million of new investment each
year. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million.
Figure 48: Scenario 2, Mid-County, Households with Minor Children
Figures 47 and 48 show the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 in Mid-County for comparison of the annual number of homeless
households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and the number
of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs show that the
investment scenario matters.
Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with minor children. Both scenarios
show that hundreds of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year in Mid-County.
These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American households.
Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages, is
intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Figure 49: Scenario 1, Mid-County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Figure 50: Scenario 2, Mid-County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Appendix G: CoC Sub-Geography Models, North County
North County includes Albany, Berkeley, and Emeryville. At 2019 Point in Time Count, roughly 16.5% of the CoC
homeless population were counted in North County. All the estimates and recommendations below are based on North
County, containing 16.5% of the CoC’s homeless population of households with only adults and households with minor
children. It assumes that household compositions and characteristics are relatively consistent across the CoC and that
inflow and returns rates are consistent across sub-geographic regions. Finally, at the writing of this report, the CoC does
not have baseline inventory data for each region. This makes it difficult to provide accurate estimates of the number of
additional units needed. In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more
detailed understanding of homeless households’ characteristics and needs of homeless households in each community,
the inflow rate and returns to homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Scenario 1 North County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless system represented in the model will improve the
rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate of returns to homelessness by three percent each
year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into the homeless system maintains at 20%, close to the
inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment
of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and
$250,000 in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 1 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 51: Scenario 1, North County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 North County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as Scenario 1, assuming that retention will quickly improve,
reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into
homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2 adds $50 million of new investment each year.
The combined countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up in Scenario 2 is $956 million.
Figure 52: Scenario 2, North County, Households with Only Adults
Figure 51 represents the different impacts of each investment scenario in the homeless population: annual population
(blue), exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining (green). These graphs show that investment strategy
impacts significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time, both scenarios
indicate that thousands of adults will continue to experience homelessness each year in North County, even after five
years of aggressive investment. These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in particular,
Black and Native Americans. Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and
housing shortfalls—homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda County.
Figure 53: Scenarios 1 and 2 Comparison in North County
Scenario 1 North County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 1 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistic, maintaining at 20% year after year, close to the inflow
rate of 22% that Alameda County saw between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled system will be more
equitable and effective than the current system, resulting in higher permanent housing retention rates. The rate of
returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant countywide investment of $13 million in year one and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year
Figure 55: Scenario 2, North County, Households with Minor
Children
three, $2 million in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the
response for homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Figure 54: Scenario 1, North County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 North County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 adds $6 million of new investment each
year. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million (rounded).
Figures 54 and 55 show the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 in North County for comparison of the annual number of
homeless households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and
the number of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs
show that the investment scenario matters.
Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with minor children. Both scenarios
show that hundreds of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year in North County.
These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American households.
Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages, is
intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Figure 56: Scenario 1, North County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Figure 57: Scenario 2, North County Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Appendix H: CoC Sub-Geography Models, Oakland
Oakland includes the cities of Oakland and Piedmont. At 2019 Point in Time Count, roughly 50.7% of the CoC homeless
population were counted in Oakland. All the estimates and recommendations below are based on Oakland containing
50.7% of the CoC’s homeless population of households with only adults and households with minor children. It assumes
that household compositions and characteristics are relatively consistent across the CoC and that inflow and returns
rates are consistent across sub-geographic regions. Finally, at the writing of this report, the CoC does not have baseline
inventory data for each region. This makes it difficult to provide accurate estimates of the number of additional units
needed. In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more detailed
understanding of homeless households’ characteristics and needs of homeless households in each community, the
inflow rate and returns to homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Scenario 1 Oakland, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless system represented in the model will improve the
rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate of returns to homelessness by three percent each
year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into the homeless system maintains at 20%, close to the
inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment
of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and
$250,000 in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 1 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 58: Scenario 1, Oakland, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 North County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as Scenario 1, assuming that retention will quickly improve,
reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into
homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2 adds $50 million of new investment each year.
The combined countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up in Scenario 2 is $956 million.
Figure 59: Scenario 2, Oakland, Households with Only Adults
Figure 58 shows the different impacts of each investment scenario in the homeless population: annual population (blue),
exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining (green). These graphs show that investment strategy impacts
significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time, both scenarios indicate that
thousands of adults will experience homelessness each year in Oakland, even after five years of aggressive investment.
These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in particular, Black and Native Americans.
Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and housing shortfalls—
homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda County.
Figure 60: Scenarios 1 and 2 Compared, Oakland, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 Oakland, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 1 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistic, maintaining at 20% year after year, close to the inflow
rate of 22% that Alameda County saw between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled system will be more
equitable and effective than the current system, resulting in higher permanent housing retention rates. The rate of
returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant countywide investment of $13 million in year one and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year
three, $2 million in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the
response for homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Figure 61: Scenario 1, Oakland, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 Oakland, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 adds $6 million of new investment each
year. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million (rounded).
Figure 62: Scenario 2, Oakland, Households with Minor Children
Figures 61 and 62 show the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 in Oakland for comparison of the annual number of homeless
households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and the number
of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs show that the
investment scenario matters.
Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with minor children. Both scenarios
show that hundreds of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year in Oakland.
These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American households.
Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages, is
intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Figure 63: Scenario 1, Oakland, Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Figure 64: Scenario 2, Oakland, Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Appendix I: CoC Sub-Geography Models, South County
South County includes Fremont, Newark, and Union City. At 2019 Point in Time Count, 10% of the CoC homeless
population were counted in South County. All the estimates and recommendations below are based on South County,
containing 10% of the CoC’s homeless population of households with only adults and households with minor children. It
assumes that household compositions and characteristics are relatively consistent across the CoC and that inflow and
returns rates are consistent across sub-geographic regions. Finally, at the writing of this report, the CoC does not have
baseline inventory data for each region. This makes it difficult to provide accurate estimates of the number of additional
units needed. In the future, the Point in Time Count, HMIS, and additional data collection may provide a more detailed
understanding of homeless households’ characteristics and needs of homeless households in each community, the
inflow rate and returns to homelessness, and the crisis and housing resource inventories.
Scenario 1 South County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 1 assumes that the more equitable and responsive homeless system represented in the model will improve the
rate of permanent housing retention, steadily reducing the 19% rate of returns to homelessness by three percent each
year to seven percent over five years. The inflow of households into the homeless system maintains at 20%, close to the
inflow rate that Alameda County experienced between 2017 and 2019. Scenario 1 begins with a significant investment
of $100 million in year one and then adds $60 million in year two, $50 million in year three, $30 million in year four, and
$250,000 in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 1 is $1.1 billion.
Figure 65: Scenario 1, South County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 South County, Households with Only Adults
Scenario 2 uses the same rate of return and inflow rate as Scenario 1, assuming that retention will quickly improve,
reducing by three percent each year to seven percent returning in the fifth year. Scenario 2 also assumes that inflow into
homelessness will remain both steady and high at 20%. Finally, Scenario 2 adds $50 million of new investment each year.
The combined countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling up in Scenario 2 is $956 million.
Figure 66: Scenario 2, South County, Households with Only Adults
Figure 65 represents the different impacts of each investment scenario in the homeless population: annual population
(blue), exits from homelessness (red), and annual remaining (green). These graphs show that investment strategy
impacts significant investment early in the process and can quickly turn the curve. At the same time, both scenarios
indicate that thousands of adults will experience homelessness each year in South County, even after five years of
aggressive investment. These households are likely to be disproportionately people of color and, in particular, Black and
Native Americans. Without addressing the factors driving homelessness—racism, economic inequality, and housing
shortfalls—homelessness will continue to harm an extraordinary number of adults in Alameda County.
Figure 67: Scenarios 1 and 2 Compared for South County
Scenario 1 South County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 1 assumes inflow into the homeless system is realistic, maintaining at 20% year after year, close to the inflow
rate of 22% that Alameda County saw between 2017 and 2019. It also assumes that the modeled system will be more
equitable and effective than the current system, resulting in higher permanent housing retention rates. The rate of
returns steadily reduces by two percent each year from 12% to four percent over five years. Scenario 1 begins with a
significant countywide investment of $13 million in year one and then adds $8 million in year two, $5 million in year
three, $2 million in year four, and $1 million in year five. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up the
response for homeless households with minor children is $135 million (rounded) over five years.
Figure 68: Scenario 1, South County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 South County, Households with Minor Children
Scenario 2 reflects the same returns and inflow rates as Scenario 1. Scenario 2 adds $6 million of new investment each
year. The total countywide cost of Leveling Up and Scaling Up in Scenario 2 is $108 million (rounded).
Figure 69: Scenario 2, South County, Households with Minor Children
Figures 68 and 69 show the impact of Scenario 1 and 2 in South County for comparison of the annual number of
homeless households with minor children (blue), the number of households that exit to permanent housing (red), and
the number of households with minor children that remain homeless from one year to the next (green). These graphs
show that the investment scenario matters.
Significant investment early on can turn the curve of homelessness for households with minor children. Both scenarios
show that scores of families with minor children will continue to experience homelessness each year in South County.
These are likely to be disproportionately households of color, specifically Black and Native American households.
Addressing the factors driving homelessness, namely structural racism, economic inequality, and housing shortages, is
intrinsic to ending family homelessness.
Figure 70: Scenario 1, South County, Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Figure 71: Scenario 2, South County, Investment Impact Households with Minor Children
Sources
1 Applied Survey Research, 2019, Alameda EveryOne Home Homeless Count & Survey, Watsonville, CA.
2 US Census Bureau. (2020, April 24). Quick Facts Alameda County, California. Population estimates July 1, 2019
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/alamedacountycalifornia
3 Paul,D., Knight,K., Olsen, P., Weeks, J., Yen, I., Kushel, M. (2019). Racial discrimination in the life course of older adults
experiencing homelessness: results from the HOPE HOME study. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, DOI:
10.1080/10530789.2019.1702248
4 Roots, Race, and Place. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
5 United States Census Bureau. (2020, April 27). Quick Facts, Alameda County CA.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/alamedacountycalifornia
6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. (2019).
Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis: Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, California.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/OaklandCA-CHMA-19.pdf
7 California Housing Partnership, Alameda County’s Housing Emergency Update, https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Alameda-HNR-2019-Final.pdf
8 California Housing Partnership, http://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/Alameda-County-2017.pdf
9 Alameda County Social Services Agency. (2020 April 23), Financial Assistance: General Assistance.
https://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/financial_assistance/general_assistance.cfm
10World Institute on Disability. (2020, April 23). Disability Benefits 101:working with a disability in California.
https://ca.db101.org/ca/programs/income_support/calworks/program2b.htm
11 March average amount paid accessed 4/23/2020
U.S. Social Security Administration. (2020, April 23). Selected Data From Social Security’s Disability Program.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dib-g3.html
12 AARP. (2020, April 23) How Much Will I Get From Social Security? https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-
security/questions-answers/how-much-social-security-will-i-get/
13 https://chpc.net/housingneeds/?view=37.405074,-
119.26758,5&county=California,Alameda&group=housingneed&chart=shortfall|current,cost-burden|current
14 HMIS data for period 10/1/2018-9/30/2019 for all programs requiring homelessness including street outreach,
Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, housing navigation, rapid-rehousing, and Permanent Supportive Housing. The
APR supporting this table was created on April 20, 2020 using data in Q19.
15 Alameda County Homeless Management Information System. HUD System Performance Measure 5.2 Change in the
number of persons entering ES, SH, TH and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS. This value was submitted to
HUD on February 28, 2020 as part of the Continuum of Care’s annual reporting to the federal government. The homeless
response system in Alameda County uses this measure because in this community homeless people enter permanent
housing programs like Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) or Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) directly from unsheltered living
situations.
16 HUD System Performance Measure 7b.1 counts the number of persons in Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional
Housing, and RRH who exited to permanent housing destinations.
17 Program access and permanent housing outcomes data come from the Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS). Point in Time Count data is included in the chart below to give some sense of population size. Discrepancies
between Point in Time Count data and HMIS data may reflect the way race was sampled for the Point in Time Count. Or
differences between the Point in Time Count and HMIS data may reflect a greater concentration of homeless response
system services in places like Oakland and Berkeley where a larger proportion of the homeless population is African
American or Black at 70% and 56% respectively.
18 The Continuum of Care measures returns to homelessness using HUD System Performance Measure 2: The Extent to
which Persons who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness. Alameda County
Homeless Management Information System. (2020, February 28). HUD System Performance Measures.
19 Alameda County Homeless Information System. (2020, February 13) The chart showing returns to homelessness
disaggregated by race and ethnicity derives from a report that closely approximates HUD System Performance 2: The
Extent to which Persons who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness
20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2018). Coordinated entry management and data guide
https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/coordinated-entry-management-and-data-guide.pdf p.2.
21C4 Innovations. (2019). Coordinated Entry Systems Racial Equity Analysis of Assessment Data.
https://c4innovates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CES_Racial_Equity_Analysis_2019-.pdf
22 Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1994.
23 Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Revised edition. New York:
New Press.
24 UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project and the California Housing Partnership. (2019) Rising Housing Costs and Re-
Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/bay_area_re-
segregation_rising_housing_costs_report_2019.pdf
25 Paul, D.; Knight, K.; Olsen, P.; Weeks, J.; Yen, I.; Kushel, M. (2019). Racial discrimination in the life course of older
adults experiencing homelessness: results from the HOPE HOME study. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, DOI:
10.1080/10530789.2019.1702248
26 An APR run on February 14, 2020 for the PSH project type during FFY 2019 shows 221 households who left PSH.
Dividing the number of leavers by the 2019 PSH inventory of 2,670 units produces an 8.3% annual turnover rate.
Alameda County Homeless Management Information System. (2020, February 14) Annual Performance Report: PSH.
27 Tipping Point Community. University of California Berkeley, Othering and Belonging Institute (2020). Taking Count: A
study on poverty in the Bay Area. https://tippingpoint.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Taking-Count-2020-A-Study-
on-Poverty-in-the-Bay-Area.pdf